Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Johnson]

Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.

If I drop a ball on the surface of the planet, and I am searching for a result, I need to assume based on reasonable evidence that the accelaration of gravity on the surface of the earth is -9.8m/s²

It is REASONABLE to assume this is a constant.

It is REASONABLE to assume that rate of radiological decay is constant, as it has been constant throughout recorded human history, and in ALL scientific experiments with relation to radiological decay to date. To assume it was different in past times, would be illogical and unreasonable. It would be akin to assuming that pixies and fairies, dragons and unicorns all existed and spread magic throughout the land at one point - simply because we cannot disprove it because the laws of the universe and physics MAY have worked differently in the past, and we weren't there so HOW could we possibly know? That's called "argument from stupidity".  It would be like going to a court case and a murderer saying that he didn't kill his wife, but that he actually have her candy, because for that split second of time, only in his house... a spatial anomaly made the universe work in such a fashion that stabbing someone with a knife was in fact harmless, and would create for them a sweet taste and an elevated blood sugar. It's nonsense.

It is REASONABLE to assume an isolated system, considering samples that are radiometrically dated come from places that have been BURIED in DEEP layers of rock for ridiculous amounts of time with zero evidence of events that would indicate contamination, considering especially that the scientists doing the dating are specifically trying to seek out evidence of contamination that would corrupt the accuracy of their dates, and their GOAL is to find an ACCURATE date.

It is REASONABLE to assume based on evidence and study what the GENERAL initial conditions were in the sample being dated, based on samples taken from a wide variety of locations and times, and through experimentation and testing....

Why are all those things reasonable?  Mainly because radiometic dating is KNOWN to not be 100% accurate by the scientific community which is why it is RARELY the only form of dating done, and why a combination of dating methods are usually used...

Another reason why it's REASONABLE to make these assumptions is because of all the OTHER forms of dating that show that the idea of an earth that is only 6000 years old is an idea held by people so ignorant that it is a wonder they can function in society.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Age of the Earth[/url]
Scientists claim that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old - but how do they know this? Read som lines of evidence for this age of the Earth.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Age of the Earth: Debate[/url]
An attempted internet debate, with orderly turns between speakers, length limits, and a predetermined topic (the age of the earth).

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Changing Views of the History of the Earth[/url]
How did we get from believing that Earth was young to the realization that it is ancient - about 4.5 billion years old?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Creation Science &amp; the Earth's Magnetic Field[/url]
Creationists argue that the earth's magnetic field proves that the earth cannot be more than 10000 years old. Read the details of this argument and how it is debunked

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Dating with Icecores[/url]
Determining the ages of ancient ice cores, and thus also the earth. Ice cores from Antarctica date back 160,000 years, which is a real problem for young-earth creationists and catastrophists.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Decay of c-decay[/url]
Light from galaxies billions of light years away demonstrate that the universe is ancient, not young. But some young-earth creationists actually argue that the speed of light has changed over time. Does this argument have any validity?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Geochronology[/url]
Is radiometric dating invalid? Many young earth creationists think so, but this essay raises questions about their methods.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Geological Time Scale[/url]
The standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described - important for any discussion about the age of the earth when discussing issues with creationists.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Isochron Dating Methods[/url]
The isochron radiometric dating technique does not fall prey to common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating.Learn about what it is, how it is used, and why it is so reliable.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Meteorite Dust &amp; the Age of the Earth[/url]
Should both the Earth and Moon be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply? Creationists will argue this, but they base their argument on faulty data and unjustifiable extrapolations.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">&quot;New Redshift Interpretation&quot; Cosmology[/url]
Young-earth creationist Robert Gentry wants to replace the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe. Find out how his model is flawed with a number of deficiencies, errors and inconsistencies.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Recession of the Moon[/url]
A common argument made by young-earth creationists is that the Earth-moon system could not be billions of years old. What are the physics of this system and why these creationists are wrong?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Polonium Haloes[/url]
Examination of the claim that creationist Robert Gentry's polonium haloes are evidence for a young earth. Find out why Gentry has misinterpreted the data.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Radiometric Dating &amp; Geological Time[/url]
Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Find out how scientists apply such principles to date rocks.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos &amp; Other Oddities[/url]
Nuclear fusion is the only process reasonably capable of powering the sun, and one product of this fusion is invisible particles called 'neutrinos'. But why don't we observe as many solar neutrinos as theory would predict?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html" onClick="zT(this,'1/XJ/Ya')" class="ol">Various Interpretations of Genesis[/url]
Can the book of Genesis can be interpreted so that it does not conflict with scientific fact? This article describes a few such attempts.

[Johnson]

So... to add to the embarrassment of creationism...

Let's just add that ... in order for THAT crap to be true...
Radiological decay would have had to be different in the past...
The speed of light would magically have had to be different...
The way ice forms would have had to be different...
Even the way tree rings form would have had to be different...

Oh... and lets examine... Noah's Ark...With that theory - evolution is false.... So somehow, Noah would have had to load into his magical 'ark of holding'... somewhere between 10 and 100 million species of animal (ignoring flora) of which we only have scientific names for about 1.2 million animals (about 3 mil if you count flora as well)...

So, if Noah were to be loading... say... 30 MILLION pairs of animals at the RIDICULOUS rate of a pair every 3 seconds....
it would have taken him over 3 YEARS to do so, and I believe that quite possibly, based on the dimensions of the ark, the density of that many animals packed into that small of a space, would create a miniature black hole.

Believing that sort of nonsense should be designated a condition that requires psychological treatment.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.

That's fine.  I will ask you if it is "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?

Also:  A "REASONABLE" assumption is an "ASSUMPTION":  True (  )  or  False (  )??


PS.  Don't expect me to spend hours combing through your propaganda links any more than I would expect you to comb through a bunch of Christian propaganda links...

[ChristianAnarchist]

So... to add to the embarrassment of creationism...

Let's just add that ... in order for THAT crap to be true...
Radiological decay would have had to be different in the past...
The speed of light would magically have had to be different...
The way ice forms would have had to be different...
Even the way tree rings form would have had to be different...

Oh... and lets examine... Noah's Ark...With that theory - evolution is false.... So somehow, Noah would have had to load into his magical 'ark of holding'... somewhere between 10 and 100 million species of animal (ignoring flora) of which we only have scientific names for about 1.2 million animals (about 3 mil if you count flora as well)...

So, if Noah were to be loading... say... 30 MILLION pairs of animals at the RIDICULOUS rate of a pair every 3 seconds....
it would have taken him over 3 YEARS to do so, and I believe that quite possibly, based on the dimensions of the ark, the density of that many animals packed into that small of a space, would create a miniature black hole.

Believing that sort of nonsense should be designated a condition that requires psychological treatment.

Your shotgun approach to making strawmen arguments just shows how you will not answer the current question and can not...

It's about ASSUMPTIONS...

Check the wikipedia article on radiometric dating...

[Jetfire]

Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults

[ChristianAnarchist]

Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults

Wars come from men, not God.  It is difficult, I know to make the disconnect between what MEN do in their mistaken BELIEF about God, but you can't blame God for what men do.  His existence is not dependent on what we believe or not.  If it were, how could He claim to be God???

[WallyC33]

Ok, time to answer your first point...

You are correct in observing that my position is that understanding that rights come from God is the basis of the "Christian" part of the answer.  This is also (or so it seems) the exact same thing that you claim to be "missing" above when stating that God is unnecessary for liberty.  If we don't understand where our rights come from, we cannot understand how they become "unalienable".  If we claim that our rights are simply there because of our existence, then we have no "authority" behind the rights.  I can claim as easily that you don't have them and take your life away on a whim and have just as legitimate an argument for doing so (of course a Christian can still do it, but with an understanding of the Creator, that person would know that he runs some risk of doing so).

So, all morals and rights must come from God? Ok... Let's END that notion right here.


[youtube=425,350]1XBTMFAch-I[/youtube]

Is morality driven by faith? Few things unite believers and atheists more firmly than the suggestion that moral judgments draw their strength from religion. To be sure, many a virtuous atheist has denied it, and with good reason. The old saw that we would have to invent God if He didn't exist implies a view of moral motivation that's suitable for four-year-olds. If you follow these commandments you'll go to heaven, and if you don't you'll burn in hell is just a spectacular version of the bribes and threats we use to raise our children: If you clean up your room you'll go to the playground and if not you'll stay inside. Few serious thinkers, secular or religious, view us as moral infants in need of sacred carrots and sticks. Still their remains a lurking suspicion that religion is what gives moral convictions their backbone. Just watch the difference between believers and atheists defending an ethical standpoint. When most atheists use words like evil, moral, or nobility, they incline to put some distance between themselves and their language with an air-quote. It's the ultimate post-modern gesture, wiggling fingers to express doubt and discomfort about making moral judgments at all. Most believers, by contrast, keep their hands in their laps.

In a world where politicians invoke God's command to start a war in the absence of other reasons for doing so, we may wish more believers would express self-doubt. Here both sides would benefit from a closer look at the Bible. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah, traditional focus of a favorite fundamentalist message of the carrot and stick variety. Most people think the story is simple: the Sodomites sinned - through homosexual behavior, or sexual licentiousness in general - and God destroyed them, turning a thriving town into a pile of rubble and a wistful woman into a pillar of salt. But you needn't be a fundamentalist to abhor the sin that did in the Sodomites: it was in fact their attempt to gang-rape two strangers to death. The strangers turned out to be angels, which was the Sodomites' undoing, and their violation of ancient rules of hospitality turned moral law upside down. Concerned that total annihilation might be too severe a punishment even for gang-raping one"s guests, Jewish legends expand on the account in Genesis: the Sodomites made xenophobia a matter of principle, and punished those who helped strangers with death.
But the most important part of the story is what happens before the cities are leveled. God reveals His destructive plans to Abraham, and Abraham speaks up. What if there are fifty righteous people among the sinners? Surely the God of justice would not judge the innocent and guilty alike? The God of justice agrees; for fifty righteous people He will leave the cities alone. But is the Lord a pedant? Surely He won't destroy the city for the want of just five? Abraham bargains God down to ten, and several things about his actions should serve as a model.

First, they're universalistic. Abraham's interest is not confined to his tribe or his neighbors, but to the lives of innocents everywhere. Second, Abraham is clearly frightened. In a world where even ordinary sovereigns are ill-inclined to debate their actions with their subjects, he dares remind the King of Kings that He's about to violate moral law. Third, both parties acknowledge that morality is not a matter of absolute principles, but of paying attention to detail. (God might have answered: Save the town for the sake of fifty? Next he'll be wanting to let the' whole bunch go scot-free!) But despite a refusal to trade in absolutes, two moral judgments emerge perfectly clear: rape is a criminal action, and so is collateral damage.

What's most important about this story, however, is what it says about the source of moral judgment. Whatever it is, it isn't divine authority. We have moral needs so strong they can override our instincts for self-preservation. Even those with a direct line to God cannot depend on it to yield moral certainty. Abraham was as true a man of faith as religion ever knew, yet he used his own moral reason - even at the risk of God's wrath.
For conservative believers, the message is a warning: morality can be expressed through faith, but it cannot be based on it. Sometimes questioning religious authority can be a moral action, as the Bible itself reveals. This story of Abraham suggests that if God gave us reason, He meant us to use it - even if that means challenging the very highest commands.

For secular citizens, the message should be welcome: among the many pieces of wisdom to be found in the Bible is the acknowledgment that no moral judgment is infallible - and all of us are required to do our best nonetheless. You can stand firm even without the belief that God's own voice is directing you - so long as you rely on principles of justice which have guided the better angels of our nature from ancient days to our own. There's much more to be said about those principles themselves, but finding common ground on which believers and secularists can stand is the first and crucial step.

Ok, that was enough, but if you feel like being further entertained with this sort of debate... I present Al Sharpton vs Christopher Hitchens
[youtube=425,350]bWt8a1aMkZ4[/youtube]


So, the authority for our morality is based on human solidarity, and some variation of the golden rule and the categorical imperative. Rights cannot come from God, no matter what your belief, because belief in God is not only not universal, thereby making it impossible for him to be a universal standard for morality, but also because, as Susan Neiman so eloquently demonstrates, even the bible requires you to make an independent judgment of the very morality of 'God' himself.

The authority of rights is not based in FEAR of a spooky father figure, but in VIRTUE and MORALITY. Not the FAKE virtue and MORALITY that comes from FEAR of punishment, but in the true virtue that comes from the honest desire to be a good person without regard to punishment or reward in some mystical afterlife.

Do you have a version of the first video without the extremely annoying voice? That was torture! And, Al Sharpton? Really? that Shill?

[Johnson]

Wrong again.  My position is that certain ASSUMPTIONS have to be made in radiometric dating.  TRUE (  )  or  FALSE (  ) ???

FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

Radiometric dating requires REASONABLE assumptions.
ALL scientific experiments require REASONABLE assumptions.

That's fine.  I will ask you if it is "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?

Also:  A "REASONABLE" assumption is an "ASSUMPTION":  True (  )  or  False (  )??


PS.  Don't expect me to spend hours combing through your propaganda links any more than I would expect you to comb through a bunch of Christian propaganda links...

A reasonable assumption is not an unprovable assumption. Avoiding your original wording is STILL dishonest. Calling something an unprovable assumption when you are speaking in scientific terms is as dishonest and asinine as attacking evolution as a theory using the non-scientific definition of the word theory. Gravity is also a theory. Evolution, and gravity, are equally facts of reality that each have similar mountains of evidence.

Also dishonest - asking me - "Is it "reasonable" to "assume" that the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock was x when the universe was "born"?" as though there is a large portion of the scientific community making claims like this, when really, it's a talking point on some creationist website you haunt, and you probably aware of that fact.

Also, I would look at links you posted if you made claims that they actually disproved a point or argument I made. You don't post clear, concise and well thought out articles though, not even information of the caliber I have which doesn't actually RAMBLE ON but are really only spans a page or two. The reason you don't do this, is because you, like every other person who claims to KNOW the existence of god, are a liar, and aware of the fact that you are lying. Engaging in logical argumentation, and thought out rational debate in a point by point fashion would ONLY serve to tear down your lies, and make it more difficult for you to proceed in spreading your fictional mind slavery.

Lastly, all of the "propaganda" was in fact NOT posted as links, but was included in my posts.... The ONLY link that I have posted in this thread (at least recently) was in fact to a pro-god Christian website, wherein, even a bible thumping christfag thinks you are an idiot for rambling on about radiometric dating.
 

[Johnson]

Too many wars fought for religion to much shit too much unjust shit in ppls life to even begin to belive theres a "just" god let alone a god period. I believe in humans who on a whole want the best for them and there kids. its the select few who rally ignorant fucks into government and other gay ass cults

Wars come from men, not God.

He didn't say wars came from God. He said he didn't believe in God, pay attention.

It is difficult, I know to make the disconnect between what MEN do in their mistaken BELIEF about God, but you can't blame God for what men do.

Is God all powerful? Yes.
Could God stop the wars. Yes.
Did God create evil by creating the tree of knowledge, and then placing it in the garden of Eden? (or just creating it directly IN the garden... who knows how he likes to do his magic) Anyway, the answer is... Yes. *** Wait that was SATAN's FAULT! You say?***
Ok then, is God omnipotent? Yes....
Omniscient? Yes...
Omnipresent? Yes....
Omniprescient? Yes.
So, god knew before satan even thought about tempting adam and eve...
He knew during Satan tempting Adam and Eve... and he knew EVEN while Satan was lying...
Could he have exposed the lie? Yes.

Could he have told Adam and Eve that, while they have free will, that eating of the tree of knowledge would result in all the unspeakable horrors that would ever befall humanity and let them know that their choice would result in expulsion from Eden? Yes.

Could God FORGIVE the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge. Yes.
Could God stop all wars. Yes.
Could God stop all crime, hunger, sickness, death, pain, suffering, and unhappiness. Yes. He's all powerful, he could even make it so that we don't need bad times to appreciate the good - that's what it MEANS to be all powerful.

So can we blame God directly for wars? Absolutely.

Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.

Wars are not fought for LACK of belief in God... Some wars are fought to promote Statism and allegiance to a king or state power over a religious power (typically when the theocracy has been overthrown), but NO wars are fought in the name of nothing.

  His existence is not dependent on what we believe or not.  If it were, how could He claim to be God???

God doesn't make any claims. If there was a God that actually proved it's existence, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but there isn't, which is why your idea of a deity is as equally plausible as zeus, dionysis, xenu, vishnu, cthulhu, baal, apollo, and the flying spaghetti monster.


Guts - if you want to see how they couldn't even remove all of the vileness from the old testament when they concocted the New Version, just check out Judges 11 in the KJV, and see how God digs it when Jephthah makes his daughter into a crispy critter.

[ChristianAnarchist]

FALSE. That was not your position. You stated that radiometric dating required "unprovable assumptions". Your edit of your claim shows further dishonesty in the face of reasonable questioning.

Now I don't remember ever making the claim that the assumptions are "unprovable" but I've assumed that perhaps I did until now when I checked back several pages.  Where exactly did I make this claim?

Even if I did make that claim, it is splitting hairs to make a distinction between "unprovable assumptions" and "reasonable assumptions" as both are "assumptions" by definition and both are also "unprovable".  Just taking an assumption (by definition "unprovable" with present technology) and claiming that it is "reasonable" does not remove the FACT that as an "assumption" it either HAS NOT been PROVEN or CAN NOT be PROVEN.

So much for the "pile driver of reason"...

[John Shaw]

Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

[ChristianAnarchist]

Can we blame belief in God for wars? Absolutely, since the reasons are clearly stated and on display in the various books that religious followers who follow those books claim are the words of god.

No, your "reason" is lacking again.  Stating that God is guilty because He created men with FREE WILL and he obviously knew that men would abuse their freewill is not valid.  You would then have to say that God is also innocent as He created men with FREE WILL and he also knew that they would do good (instances abound)...

[Jetfire]

Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical
Unprovable: ummm not provable.....

How is that minimal difference? One is not only more likely to be true but has a chance at being tested to be proven... Certainly anything could be brought down to either being true or false but I would rather be logical and not irrational.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wow.  So many words to simply say what I've said many times.  That a belief in a Creator requires faith.  The same point used on those of the "cult of science"  (as opposed to ACTUAL science) is lost on the blinded cult members.  No one responds to the valid claim (for instance) that all radiometric dating is based on certaiin unprovable assumptions.  Let's hear any of your cult members admit to this fact (silence...)

Forgive me for not writing a lengthy responce (which is no more valid than a short one) but I'm typing this out on my treo keyboard waiting for someone...

OK. You got me on that one.  It is still true though that the difference between "reasonable assumptions" and "unprovable assumptions" is minimal or none.

An "assumption" is an "assumption" because it either can not or has not been "proven"...  True (   ) or  False (   ) ?

For any interested here's a great link on the problems with radiometric dating (includes isochrons).

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Reasonable: agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical
Unprovable: ummm not provable.....

How is that minimal difference? One is not only more likely to be true but has a chance at being tested to be proven... Certainly anything could be brought down to either being true or false but I would rather be logical and not irrational.

It's a minimal difference because "reason" is different depending on WHO is making that judgment.  Reason for one person will be unreason for another.  Who then determines "reason"?  Is it my majority vote?  Is it determined by certain "ordained" academics?   Maybe it's determined by our "elected" leaders?  Obama must be the most reasonable of all since so many people are fooled by his promises...