there is no burden to substantiate the assumptions required to generate evodates
I don't know what "evodates" are any more than I know what "evopriests" or "evogoggles" are.
It would be extraordinary indeed if you somehow had
more than 100% certainty about anything.
If I made up silly names for creationists I'd be told I was slandering them, but unlike you I do not have an irresistable desire to belittle my opponents rather than engage with what they are saying.
Evolutionists make up new words all the time. You've been to talkdeceptions; you must've seen quite a few of them.
Worse yet, they redefine extant terms and try to belittle anyone who isn't with their program.
'Homology' is a fine example of both. When it was invented, it just meant 'similarity'. There was no need at all for a new word, other than to apply a "scientific" veneer to bogus arguments. BUT the story doesn't end with that. After the terms "parallel evolution" and "convergent evolution" came along, it was decided that homology that resulted from them couldn't be called 'homology'. 'Homology' was redefined as similarity resulting from regular evolution, and the term 'analogous' was pressed into evoservice to describe the other equally similar traits that have been found. This renders 'homology' dependent on evolutionism being true in order to even be a word. So 'homology' arguments are circular (for an additional reason; they already were circular).
Geologists don't make lots of guesses. One type of dating they use is radiometric.
No joke? Can any of the assumptions behind radiometric dating be proven? That's the issue you're trying not to answer without appearing not to answer.
If you're going to wave away scientists whose life's work this is
Life's work? How do you know it's his life's work? How do you know he gives a hoot about evolutionism, when he has to support it if he wants to be confident he'll have a job next month? You have a lot of nerve trying to evoke sympathy for junk science by appealing to anyone's "life's work".
The cowardly underpinnings of evolutionism are based to a very large extent on threatening to prevent a person from achieving their "life's work" if they don't comply. The intimidation we've all seen to one extent or another starts in school and never stops.
and who compare data and peer review each other rigorously, then you sure as heck need to cough up some evidence that they are in fact simply making assumptions.
It is common knowledge that assumptions are involved. There are assumptions in all science. Good scientists seek to keep them to a minimum. Poor scientists pile them on just to pile them on.
The misnamed "Copernican Principle" is an example of an unwarranted, unneeded assumption that has been incorporated just to keep from finding truth. It serves no other purpose. There is no basis for it whatsoever, and it is contrary to observation. The "life's work" of those who support it is making up fiction. The idea has more accurate names, but I shan't confuse you by using them. I employ the common evoterm for your benefit.
Now, would YOU care to explain why the assumptions behind evodates don't need to be proven, but Russ' assumptions do? Nothing in your post comes even close to explaining away the double standard. Russ has a life's work too. We all do. That does not make one subject to rules of science and reason and another exempt. If anything, one might expect a
professional scientist to meet a
higher standard in such matters, rather than being excused. You object to my appeal for
balanced treatment!
But then you don't seem to have much choice, do you? The game
must be rigged. Now if only you can prevent me from pointing out the rigged condition of the game...
