What is radioisotope dating and how can science attach dates to rock formations?

For years we have heard that scientists can prove the earth is old by means of radioisotope dating. Although there are numerous scientists that do not recognize these methods, this fact is seldom discussed in the media.

The way radiometric dating works is very simple. One isotope decays into another at a predictably assumed rate. "Uranium (parent)" decays into "lead (daughter)," "potassium (parent)" decays into "argon (daughter)," and "rubidium (parent)" decays into "strontium (daughter)." The half-life is simply how long it takes for one pound of uranium, for example, to decay into a half pound of lead.

The general idea is that the more daughter element in the rock, the longer its been sitting there decaying, thus, the older the rock. However, there are a variety of problems with this method as numerous unverifiable assumptions must be made.

The technical explanation:
Radiometric Dating uses the following three primary assumptions in determining age:

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. As I previously mentioned, we know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short, half-life polonium halos in rock are evidence of rapid formation of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two "mutually-exclusive" facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s otherwise the dating will absolutely be useless. It is very difficult for one to argue the system has never been contaminated through ground water leaching.
Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three:No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals, which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava), can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes, which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that if your original assumption is flawed then the dates you get mean absolutely nothing. As there is with so much about the theory of evolution, there is circular reasoning involved in radiometric dating as it uses the geologic column to verify it's age.

Some analogies to help clarify:
Let's look at this from a mathematical perspective: In the equation, "distance = rate x time", for example, it is absolutely necessary to have two of the components to this equation in order to calculate the sum, which is unknown. This equation could also be written, "time = distance / rate", but again, you still must know two of the parts in order to determine the third. If you know any two of the unknowns it is quite easy to find the third. If you only know one of the three variables then you really know very little and can't hope to figure out the other two unknowns.

A bucket of potatoes:
Let's say you walk into the room and you see that I am peeling potatoes. You sit there for a while, say 15 minutes, and during those 15 minutes you notice that I peeled 15 potatoes. You walk up to me and notice that there are a total of 45 potatoes in this bucket (30 that were peeled prior to you coming in the room and the remaining 15 while you were watching me).

Now here's the big question, how long have I been peeling the potatoes? Your initial guess would be 45 minutes right (If it took me 15 minutes to peel 15 you would assume it took me 45 minutes to peel 45)? By assuming this can you be absolutely sure? Or better yet, can you prove it? Of course you can't.

Now since you weren't actually there to observe me peeling the potatoes, you'd be forced to make some assumptions:

1) The peel rate remained constant during the entire time I was peeling. 2) There were no peeled potatoes already in the bucket when I started. 3) Nobody came and took any of the potatoes or added to them while I was peeling and you were absent from the room.

Since you were not present, and based on these assumptions, it is a long shot for you to know with absolute certainty how long I had been standing there peeling potatoes. After all, I could have been very tired by the time you walked into the room and had therefore slowed my pace considerably. The same is said for the earth, we don't know with absolute certainty how old it is; yet secular-geologists and the media promote the idea that we do. In the Creationist model, we compute the genealogies of the Bible to determine an approximate date and that leaves us between six and ten thousand years.

If the truth were told, all methods of dating, other than Carbon 14, assume too much to be at all reliable. It takes less faith to believe in the Genesis account of creation than it does to believe in radiometric dating or the theory of evolution itself.