Please explain how the burden of proof can be on Russ, yet there is no burden to substantiate the assumptions required to generate evodates.
First, you are incorrect about the burden of proof in regards to the dating systems used by geologists.
The burden of proof always resides with the person who makes the initial claim. His apparant claim that harmful mutations are required build up to a beneficial mutation is not part of any evolution theory that I know of. If he got it from some biology texts or papers it would be much easier for him to provide the reference than for me to go looking at all biology texts and papers to show that it is not a part of the theory of evolution.
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.
No double standard. You just seem to be unaware of the support that was required to substantiate the dating methods used.
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.
Faulty premise as shown above, therefore faulty conclusion. So we are back to Russ supplying some substantiation for his statements regarding mutations. If you want to discuss why your premise was faulty you can start a thread on whatever dating method you like.
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?
RAZD stated that scientific theories are not ever completely proven. That does not eliminate the requirement of the burden of proof for particular statements within or regarding that theory. This is especially true of statements of fact...like the ratio between harmful, neutral and beneficial mutations.
