Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by CTD
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.
In due time. I think it's only fair to give you plenty of opportunity to disclose them on your own. If it really is "sensationally ridiculous" to fail to accept your conclusion, I don't see any good reason you shouldn't fully disclose the assumptions and the reasoning and the evidence on your own.

Quote
Quote
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.
Huh? You disagree with this assumption?

I'm fully aware that it can be arrived at by stacking up other assumptions, I'm just saying it would be more efficient to assume that which you wish to be true in the first place. It's not dishonest at all, unless you make the assumption and lie about it.

Quote

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?
I'm saying there are circumstances where circular reasoning will come into play. Like when different decay rates are observed, and the observer must conclude that the rate never changes, he's probably going to employ circular reasoning to get there. He sure won't make it on straightforward, honest logic, now will he?

Quote
Quote
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?

Well, it's not a term I've seen in textbooks. Perhaps you might've asked him when you had the chance?

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38883#Post38883

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38639#Post38639

The whole trick is that Christians are supposed to feel guilty if they can be provoked by offensive enough behavior - stuff like that. If you "don't understand", well, not much we can do... It's a pretty common game, actually. Has nobody ever played it on you?

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