Changes

::::You haven't explained why it is that the burden of proof is on supporters of the flood.

::::You haven't explained why it is that the burden of proof is on supporters of the flood.

::::I wonder what "those who do not believe that there was a flood" would consider to be "proof".  I suspect that they would not be convinced even if a lot of supportive evidence was offered.

::::I wonder what "those who do not believe that there was a flood" would consider to be "proof".  I suspect that they would not be convinced even if a lot of supportive evidence was offered.

::::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 dates 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.

::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science.  Conceding this point ''arguendo'', I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it.  Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that [[creation science]] is also bad science.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science.  Conceding this point ''arguendo'', I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it.  Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that [[creation science]] is also bad science.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Subterranean Salt Deposits==

==Subterranean Salt Deposits==