Originally Posted by LinearAq
Without supporting your premise, your math, whether correct or not, is worthless. Faulty premise results in faulty conclusion. I am not proving your premise false because the burden is on you to show it to be true.
Please explain how the burden of proof can be on Russ, yet there is no burden to substantiate the assumptions required to generate evodates.

I do not say this in order to discuss evodates here. This issue is that of an apparent double standard applying to burdens of proof.

If they are allowed to freely incorporate any premise they want, why not Russ? If the only restriction is that they cannot incorporate a disproven premise, the same should apply to Russ, and the burden must fall to those who dispute what he says.

Also, RAZD was fond of maintaining that there are no burdens of proof for scientific theories. Are you not already in disagreement on that point? Or is there something you'd like to clarify?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson