::::Your comment about discrediting evidence on the basis that there was a flood misses TerryH's point. First, a date is not "evidence" itself (you don't dig up dates), it is a calculation based on evidence and assumptions. Second, TerryH was talking about such date that are calculated ''presuming'' that there was no flood. To use dates based on the ''presumption'' that there was no flood to show that there was no flood is a circular argument, and it is quite proper to exclude them. | ::::Your comment about discrediting evidence on the basis that there was a flood misses TerryH's point. First, a date is not "evidence" itself (you don't dig up dates), it is a calculation based on evidence and assumptions. Second, TerryH was talking about such date that are calculated ''presuming'' that there was no flood. To use dates based on the ''presumption'' that there was no flood to show that there was no flood is a circular argument, and it is quite proper to exclude them. |