| Line 74: |
Line 74: |
| | ::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above? | | ::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above? |
| | ::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT) | | ::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here: |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally: |
| | + | |
| | + | :::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. |
| | + | |
| | + | :::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | === The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood === | | === The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood === |