Yep.
Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.Speaking of "appeal to authority," JediGirl, can you explain the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating? Can you derive this yourself? Can you list the assumptions necessary to derive it? Or would you never appeal to radiometric dating methods? Or will you never again post "Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience"? You don't want to be like Medved, do you?
Or how about this?
Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."This would seem to be a poor support for modern science, since, according to (if I recall correctly) the American Academy of Sciences, science is the search for, not the true explanations, but naturalistic explanations of phenomena. If there are actually any non-naturalistic causes for any phenomena studied by modern science, then modern science will be in direct conflict with Newton's restatement of Occam's Razor.
Not that that bothers me. It's the hyporcrisy that bothers me.
"Occam's Razor ne'er shaved the barber; it is too dull."
--Glory Road by Robert Heinlein. Quoted from a faulty memory.
Likewise, you appear to hold some sort of opinion concerning the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating. What your opinion is, I have no idea.