snip Nope.  I made the statement that there isn't any 2700 BCE flood Inca legend. Wrong Sue.  You said: Of course, the Mayans here in America didn't notice it, the Incas didn't notice it, the Aztecs didn't notice it, and strangest of all, the Egyptians, which were Right Next Door didn't even take note of it, or mention it anywhere.  And they left a very large volume of writings from much earlier than 2800 BCE. To say something did not occur is an affirmative proposition.  The burden is on you to back it up.  You failed to prove that the flood myths of the cultures demonstrate that they failed to notice the 2800 BCE flood.  Absent evidence of when those flood myths occured, you can never say they did not notice the floods or when they occured. What bunk..A neutral  position assumes that nothing specific happens unless we have a reason to think so Otherwise every piece of unevidenced claptrap that couldn`t be utterly disproved would have equal standing to evidenced beliefs In that case mad conjecture like, champion the wonderhorse created the universe would have equal standing to commonly accepted notions, such as, the world is sperical Plainly this isn`t the case..The burden is on you to show its even worth considering as a hypothesis

Assuming you've read his posts, you do have a lot of evidence about Nykios' views. But unless you've read two obscure novels, you don't know what 'rithshathra' means. It might be the custom of cannibalizing your dead relatives, the custom of -not- cannibalizing your dead relatives, a sexual practice, a futuristic consumer electronic gadget. You have evidence, but you haven't a clue as to whether it applies or not. You, I submit, are up Fallacy Creek. i *knew* that .sig was a reference to puppeteers! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

snip Please excuse my mistatement in the other response to this post.  Your conclusion was not a positive conclusion, rather it was a negative conclusion in the sense that you concluded there was no elephant in the room with you.  However, your negative conclusion was _base_d upon the evidence.  i.e. you looked around and saw no elephant.  This is eyewitness evidence (testimony) and is entirely logical.  What you CANNOT do is conclude there is no elephant in the room with you _base_d upon a lack of evidence.  i.e. I have no evidence, therefore no elephant. Some who argue against the flood point to evidence (i.e. they look around for evidence that should be there that is not, such as sediment _layer_s in certain lakes or movement of the Greenland Ice Sheet, or they look around for things that exist that should have been wiped out, such as certain strata, etc.) and conclude no flood.  This is entirely logical.  Others, however (and I can go drag out the numerous posts if you want) first stipulate there is no evidence of the flood (wiped out by errosion, miracles took it away, etc.) yet conclude there was no flood.  This is the extrapolation of a negative from a lack of evidence and it is illogical.      

Sigh.  Let's take this in yet another direction.   I say Big Foot doesn't exist.   You say, yes he does, here's evidence he does exist.  The evidence you post is very vague and may or may not apply to the existance of Big Foot. You can claim all you wish that *MY* argument is invalid because I don't know whether there is a Big Foot or not.  The burden is not on me.  I say the evidence doesn't exist.  You have to prove it DOES!!!! Five quatloos he doesn't address this.