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.
Russ mentioned 2 assumptions in post #48759 in this thread:
(1) All elements follow the same decay curve, and
(2) The decay rates of all elements cannot be affected by external conditions.
I addressed both of those. I separated the decay curve shape assumption for a detailed explanation and then discussed the decay rate assumption less rigorously.
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.
If you want to discuss other assumptions by all means bring up a particular assumption that you believe is being used in radiometric dating and we can discuss it.
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.
Except that it is an incorrect description of the actual assumption made. I know it is an incorrect description so if I let you believe that I agreed with it, I would be lying.
Are you saying that the explanation I provided is circular reasoning? If so, could you provide a more detailed explanation as to how it is circular reasoning?
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 is the "reverse-guilt game"? What have I said about your use of the term "evodate", "evolutionism" and others that is inaccurate?
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.
Amazingly you get to call me a liar without any proof and your post remains in place. To quote Mel Brooks: "It's good to be the king!"
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.
Now you accuse me of having a low moral character...again with no proof...and in a public forum. Perhaps I should appeal to the moder...Oh..right...never mind.
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.
I have a conscience and I acknowledge its source. It is the requirement that to be a "real" Christian I have to believe in a 6 day creation 6000 years ago, which I find untenable both scientifically and Biblically.
BTW: We are all sinners, even you. I do, however, agree that help from God is needed to overcome temptation.
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.
Now you accuse me of hating virtue. Again, no evidence of such. Did you get upset by my WWJD statement? When did I say that honesty is a weakness? When did I say virtue is a weakness? I didn't even say you were being dishonest or lying...just arrogant and mean. I don't recall those being fruits of the Spirit.
