I could have been more precise and said, "built upon" assumptions. Of course I realize that various hypotheses and theories are built up over time from certain basic assumptions, but I doubt that this means that I am ignorant of the scientific process. What I am saying is that things like geochronometers, particularly the farther back one goes, are necessarily derived from models of variations in accumulation rates and the like, which cannot be observed directly. Consequently, conclusions are very dependent on the theoretical models used, and thus can vary widely. "Global warming" is a good example of how much predictions depend on which model one uses. Reconstruction analysis of the deep parts of ice cores is a another good example of the difficulties inherent in such extrapolations. But surely you do not doubt that initial assumptions of catastrophism or uniformitarianism determine the interpretation of whatever event is in question?
There is a long road between those assumptions and observations and what scientists refer to as "theory"
I think most scientists use the word "theory" in their writings in the more colloquial sense of "hypothesis".
Cordially,
But surely you do not doubt that initial assumptions of catastrophism or uniformitarianism determine the interpretation of whatever event is in question?
The assumptions are part of what is tested when one verifies that hypothesis on its way to becoming theory. One makes predictions that are predicated on the assumptions and the hypothesis, and looks to see if those predictions come true. This is what most science actually consists of, and is a part that "creation scientists" omit entirely, unsurprisingly since their track-record for successful prediction is zilch. A powerful confirmation of the uniformitarian assumption (essentially the bedrock of all historical science) is that numerous different dating methods that use it give correlating results.