790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: − +
no edit summary
::: As for any serious aspect to your comment is concerned, it hasn't enlightened me to what AmesG was getting at one bit.
::: As for any serious aspect to your comment is concerned, it hasn't enlightened me to what AmesG was getting at one bit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: Sorry - it's a philosophical example used to demonstrate that it's fairly shaky on a logical ground to say that something happened and then use it to justify itself. For example, I think the issue here is that your explanation of how flood geology works requires one to assume the correctness of flood geology theory to work. -- <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
==Subterranean Salt Deposits==
==Subterranean Salt Deposits==