Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
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.

headdancer Did he just say what I thought he said?
Originally Posted by LinearAq

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?

Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
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.
You are misrepresenting what I said. Clearly the context for the "number of atoms" assumption was concerning the exponential shape of the radioactive decay curve. After explaining how the curve's exponential shape is determined, I then moved on to the decay rate assumption cited by Russ.

Quote
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.

This discussion between Russ and me was not about all the radioactive decay dating assumptions; only the determination of the radioactive decay curves.
Russ wasn't talking about an assumption. Russ was talking about assumptions, and it's still clear from the scrap of context available in your latest post. The "decay curve" assumptions are a subset of the assumptions that are IMO, on-topic in this thread.

While I'd like to discuss evolutionism with folks who aren't afraid to acknowledge their assumptions, one cannot do what one does not have the opportunity to do.

I did come up with a shortcut for you: skip the math and the assumptions and just straight-up assume the "decay curve" itself! It cuts down on the assumption count, and saves on circular reasoning in some circumstances.
Quote
For the lurkers, "evodate" is one of a number of made up words used by some Christians of the Young Earth belief system. These terms are then used in a derisive fashion much in keeping with their concept of WWJD.
Maybe I'll remember to tell Ikester you're playing the "reverse-guilt game", as he calls it.

What's so wrong with accurate, concise, easily-understood terminology? Sorry. Duh! I kinda answered my own question: It's accurate, concise, and easily-understood - three strikes right there, from the point of view of the truth-averse population.

This reverse-guilt game almost seems unfair. One side has morals and the other has do-it-yourself any-which-way-you-care. I think it'd sure stink to have no foundation upon which to build one's character; no permanent basis for respecting oneself or anyone else.

Shoot, the lucky ones that still realize they have a conscience can't much acknowledge it without being reminded of its source. And even then, without help sinners are all pretty weak.

No, you play your little game. You go ahead and resent honesty and virtue and all things good, and try to get any advantage you can out of this "weakness" you perceive. Maybe in frustration you'll wake up and understand that what you take for weakness is just the opposite.

Or maybe not. Either way,
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=45433#Post45433
the Living God can still do something Satan can never ever even aspire to do.

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