Problems with Radiometric Dating?

Why are we still dealing with this issue on radiometric dating?Radiometric dating cannot be PROVEN to be reliable, especially in dating inorganic material, there are too many assumptions. It sounds great on the surface, but there are three fundamental ASSUMPTIONS that must be made.1. We must know how much radioactive material we have started with. Any slight amount has an exponential effect on the date. The formula is very basic(1/2)n x massi = massf, where n= number of half lives. n is what we are trying to find, massf is what we know. We do not know massi, the mass we started with. We have to assume we know how much we start with. Could somebody please explain how we can tell, sitting here today, how much radioactive isotope we started with.2. There is no radioactive material that has moved in or out during or after the formation of the substance. During the formation, whether it is hundreds or millions of years, how in the world can we determine this.3. That the rate of decay is constant. Well, if you measure the decay rate for say, 1 year, or even a 100 years, and determine the decay rate to be 4 million years, this is an extreme extrapolation, especially for an exponential equation.This is absurd, I can’t believe this is even discussed, there are just too many variables. Radiometric dating is an unreliable source for dating inorganic material. And don’t skirt around the issue and say that I got this off some of the many creationist websites out there and therefore it is somehow invalid. Give me the information, I am into some real, evidence that this is a valid source for dating.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines.

RAZD,I agree, with coyote, good post, thanks for the info. I think the idea of “calibrating” C14 with tree rings is great. Yet, I see a couple of problems here. First of all, tree rings are not always annual. So, we have to assume these are annual rings, I am assuming for the most part they are, but over a long period (say thousands of years), a few extra rings here and there could give an older date for the tree. Just a thought, I am not willing to die on this mountain. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the oldest trees I have been able to find, based on their rings alone, have been in the 4500 range. It is interesting that as you look at the graph, and just for kicks, drop the 5K and beyond, the graph appears to start a significant divergent from the linear path it appears to be taking.
With parent daughter systems you can estimate the amount that has decayed by the amount of daughter mass to the remaining parent mass.
Again, an assumption has to be made that all the “daughter” mass actually is daughter mass (came from the parent isotope), and was not already present in the sample. This is a very large assumption, especially since the consequence of being off could mean the difference in millions of years versus tens of thousands. How this estimation can be done with any accuracy is beyond me. What correlations are you referring to that tell us the actual age of objects that goes beyond say, 5K years? If we have correlations that tell us actual object ages, why are we even belaboring the issue of radioactive dating? We must know what these calibrations are, and see how many assumptions there are in these. If we are not accurate with our calibration tools, calibrating against an inaccurate instrument is useless. This sounds like we are getting somewhere.By the way, I sure appreciate the tips on posting. We will see if I have learned any posting etiquette.