A more restrictive definition is that an assumption is something that was not directly observed.Indeed, this seems to be the definition that creationists use, but this definition is also fraught with problems and inconsistencies.When we make a statement like that, we aren’t “assuming” that growth rates weren’t faster in the past; rather we are applying inductive logic.Also, note that the argument that creationists are making here is nothing more than an ad hoc fallacy.The most fundamental problem is one which I have previously elaborated on.
For any two bodies, if we know the mass of each object and the distance between them, then we can use G to calculate the force of gravity between those two objects.
Remember that inductive logic is the type of logic that goes from a series of observations to a general conclusion.
I have used the theory of gravity to illustrate this before, but it is such a good, clean example that I am going to use it again.
” The problem is that creationists are misusing the term “assumption,” and, as usual, are completely misconstruing how science actually works.
As I will demonstrate, coral growth rates, radioactive decay rates, etc. Rather, they are the conclusions of simple inductive logic.