Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
If you smell a rat, Russ, your instincts are functioning properly. A reasonably complete list of the assumptions behind evodates will not be forthcoming. If you want one, you're pretty much forced to creationist sources; the evolutionists simply don't like to acknowledge them.

I note that there's been reference to "the assumption" as if there is only one. We have the word 'a' in the English language, and when an informed person employs 'the' where 'a' is correct, this is an overt attempt to deceive.
The assumption I was making was that the readers of my posts would not respond unless they had the reading skills to understand what I posted and the context in which is was posted. It appears that particular assumption of mine was incorrect.
Ah, but it's the context that makes the intention so clear! Have a look: Russ correctly states that assumptions (plural) are involved, and in response, well see for yourself!

Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by Russ
Too many assumptions, not enough intellectual integrity.

Let's look at that intellectual integrity.

Radioactive decay depends upon the amount of material present. That means the number of atoms that will decay at any one time depends on the number of atoms that are there. This can be expressed with the differential equation below.

[Linked Image]
This basically means that the change in the number of atoms (dN) per unit time (dt) is proportional(using the variable lambda) to the number of atoms present at that time (N).

The solution for that differential equation is:

[Linked Image] It is this equation that describes the exponential decay function.

So, the assumption that the physicists are really making in determination of the decay curves is the one that says the number of atoms decaying at any moment depends upon the number of atoms present at that moment. Admittedly, this is a statistical function but the large number of atoms present (6.02 times 10^23 atoms in 238 grams of U-238...for example) typically make it a very close approximation.

Are you saying that the assumption of radioactive decay depending upon the number of atoms present is incorrect for long-lived isotopes?

What you have left is the assumption that radioactive decay rates haven't changed over the time that Earth has existed. You and the RATE project group say that the radioactive isotope half lives have changed. Got some evidence?

See how the writer acknowledged two assumptions right after saying there was only one? First the "number of atoms" assumption, and second, the constant rate of decay.

I doubt we'll see any of the other assumptions acknowledged any time soon. Some evodate assumptions have been discussed on this very forum in the past, but nobody ever bothers much with the older threads, do they?

That's okay. Sooner or later another thread will come along, and the lurkers who peruse the latest chat exclusively will forget this one as well. It'll fade into the past.

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