Changes

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)

:If that comment is a response to mine, I don't know what you are referring to, as I didn't mention anything about "the realm of science".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:If that comment is a response to mine, I don't know what you are referring to, as I didn't mention anything about "the realm of science".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Subterranean Salt Deposits==

==Subterranean Salt Deposits==