Originally Posted by CTD
The post was removed for the following text, which is in violation of current forum rules.
Quote
You make the claim that the assumptions of the physicists invalidate the decay curves. All I am asking is for you to quantify that statement and show that their assumptions are excessive enough to make their decay estimates 6 orders of magnitude in error.

Do you plan on actually supporting your assertions?

Common sense, COMMON SENSE fer cryin' out loud tells each and every person who's even capable of reading this that conclusions are contingent upon the validity of their underlying assumptions. Anyone who employs the term 'if' understands the principle of contingency.

Yet we see it not only assumed that I and the general readership are too stupid to grasp contingency, but it is falsely claimed I have made an assertion contrary thereunto.

The decision to remove the post is subject to review by the forum staff, and the post may be reinstated.
My post was removed because that you claim that I said you were not supporting your assertion that "conclusions are contingent upon the validity of their underlying assumptions"? That is not the assertion that I am contesting. You imply by your statements regarding radioactive decay curves that the assumption by physicists are invalid. I asked you to show what it is about those assumptions that make them invalid. Where did you EVER show that the assumptions were invalid. If you cannot point to a post where you produced some relevant evidence that the assumptions were invalid, then my claim that you are not supporting your assertion is true and my post should be reinstated.

So far, you have claimed that the assumptions used in determining radioactive decay curves cause those curves and the radiometric dating of rock to be invalid.

You have also indicated that accurate conclusions can be drawn without all information (using assumptions, extrapolations)

You have indicated that you believe it is the validity of the assumptions that determines the validity of the conclusions drawn using those assumptions.

So, what is it about the assumptions of physicists concerning radioactive decay that makes them invalid enough to cause a 6 orders of magnitude error in the conclusions regarding decay rates of long-lived isotopes?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke