[split] Radiometric Dating

[Creatard]

By my name you probably know my position, but I have a little bit of a beef with radio metric dating because of its presuppositions. Basically there are three:
1) you have to assume the absence of the daughter isotope at the start of process.
2) you have to assume constant decay rates. We have only been able to observe their rates for the past 100-150 years. Before that we can reasonably guess the affects of the earth's magnetic field and other factors would have on decay, but that is all they will ever be: an educated guess.
3) no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added during the process.
I'm going to leave it at that and see where the replies take it. Hope to here from you guys soon.

Oh awesome irony! A creatard! An actual creatard! One who is actually aware of its creatardness!

1) The start of the process can be analysed by the start of similar processes going on today, namely at active volcanoes.

2) When you measure decay rates of short lived isotopes, you get an exponential, not a constant. It is what the theory predicts, at least in first approximation. There's no actual reason why long lived isotopes would behave differently, seeing as they follow the same law, just with a different time constant.
What does the Earth's magnetic field have to do with nuclear decay rates?
You're wanting to compare the weak nuclear force with a far, far weaker magnetic force... it's effect is, at best, negligible.
3) Some radiometric dating methods actually rely on the presence of secondary and tertiary decay... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating Just look at all the possible methodologies!!
You'd do well to read actual scientific sources, if you're going to argue science. Refrain from using your creatard literature - it's skewed for your presuppositional god.

I actually selected that name intentionally to save you guys the time.
1) Again you are making an assumption that the composition of lava flows have always remained the same, and that atmospheric conditions would have the same effect as today.
2) Yes, I already knew that is was exponential decay. My basis for this claim is the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 in the atmosphere, which would depend on cosmic ray fluctuation, which would in turn be dependent on the earth's magnetic field. I was not trying to say the magnetic field had a direct impact, and I apologize for not making that clear. The strength of the magnetic field would influence how many isotopes would be created by those rays. Take a look at the formation of Carbon 14 to see how influential it is.
3)You just added more variables that may have not always been constant or you have to assume their initial composition as well.
Hold on a sec, you just cited wiki but you say my sources aren't valid because they have a bias. Not only does every evolutionist article have a bias towards materialism, but in no world is wiki ever a valid source. The only people I will ever site will have Ph.Ds in their field. Also, by citing that wiki page you implied that I have not spent the time to study what I'm attacking. I've kind of spent the last 5 years of my life reading about this stuff from peer-reviewed journals on both sides. Nothing on that page was new to me. It also doesn't matter how many dating methodologies there are in this field, because they all have the three basic presuppositions that I posted.