For one thing, if there are no assumptions, then all data was directly observed and recorded without interpretation. According to the article itself, that is not the case, therefore assumptions are involved.
Are you sure YOU understand science?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, since you still think I was referring to the research, rather than the ARTICLE, as I have plainly stated at least twice. I have not been referring to the research, since there are no links to the research in the article.
Do you have any links to the research? Oh, that's right, I asked that before, and you've already ignored the request twice.
-- A Creationist FAQ
Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism?
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science?
A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution?
A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.Q: How big was Noah's ark?
A: Big enough.Q: But what about radioactive dating?
A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.Q: What about the fossil evidence?
A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.Q: Is there any other evidence for creationism besides the Bible?
A: Yes.Q: Can you give us some?
A: Yes.Q: Could you give us a specific example?
A: Yes.Q: What would be a specific example of evidence for Creationism?
A: I've already answered that question.Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data?
A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and drink, and what do you expect?Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man?
A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists, and you saw what happened to them.Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools?
A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.Q: Doesn't the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old?
A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that, didn't we.Q: Hasn't evolution been demonstrated in the Laboratory?
A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame, many professors are demonstrating also.Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action?
A: No.Q: Why not?
A: Because they aren't.Q: What is a kind?
A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.Q: Doesn't genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time?
A: Let's be up front about this. That's deviation, not variation, and yes, there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.Q: What about Neanderthal Man?
A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.Q: Some scientists state that the earth's continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right?
A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan's doing.Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution?
A: The real scientists don't. As for the rest of them, that's a very good question, isn't it?Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy?
A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal Humanists captured academia and how Evolution is hand in hand with Godless Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn't want to say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think about it with an open mind.
-- Charles Darwin, letter to Henry Fawcett, who had defended Darwin before the British Association for the Advancement of Science against a critic who said Darwin's book was too theoretical and that he should have just "'put his facts before us and let them rest," quoted from Michael Shermer, "Colorful Pebbles and Darwin's Dictum: Science is an exquisite blend of data and theory"
Data can be interpreted without making assumptions. It can be interpreted in the light of all the other tests and observations that have gone on before. You seem to think "if we haven't done all the work ourselves, then everything we haven't touched personally is an assumption." I'm afraid you'd be wrong there.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/abs/nature04004.html
Copyright laws prohibit the reproduction of large sections of the journal article here, however, I do have subscription access to it, so if you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Cheers!