(May 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Now this is ironic, the self-proclaimed verificationist is now defending the merits of a dating method that is founded upon unverifiable assumptions. Whether an assumption is verifiable or not is largely dependent upon what sort of assumption we are dealing with. Basing your entire view of the history of the Earth on methods that are founded upon unverifiable assumptions and assumptions that appear to be downright false is not rational.
I'm not defending anything. I just asked you a question. You anticipating my stance toward anything outside the subject matter of my question is an assumption, and my opinion of it hasn't been stated. I asked YOU if assumptions are all that should be verifiable, and if so, I asked YOU, how an assumption could be confirmed. You did not answer either of these questions. Is there a reason why?