I'm attacking the science used for radiometric dating. And this should be embraced if you believe in the scientific method, since you should strive to falsify hypothesis as been discussed earlier.
Actually, to be a bit more specific, you're challenging the technology and methodology. The way I sometimes describe the process is that scientists make discoveries, engineers apply the scientific discoveries to technologies, and technicians make the technologies.
The specific scientific claim here is that:
"Radioactive decay takes place at a stable and predictable rate that makes it possible, under certain conditions, to determine the age of an object."
That hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and verified.
The problem here Piasan is that I have actually pointed out why the science is bad, it's just not bare assertions from my side. And to my knowledge you (and the scientist) do agree on most of the problems I've raised.
What you have pointed out are issues with the application of the science. Those limitations have always been openly acknowledged, even from the original researchers. Addressing those constraints has been the subject of ongoing scientific research for decades and will continue as new technologies and improved methods become available.
So why not just admit that it's not good science? What investment into old ages have you done that you (and many scientist) ignore the shortcomings of the methods and still call it good science?
Where have I ignored the shortcomings? I submit the ones ignoring shortcomings the creationists who submit seals for C14 dating, or new rocks to labs that tell you they can't test anything less than 2,000,000 years old? In fact, I would call such actions "cherry picking" of samples that are KNOWN, in advance, to be untestable with the methods/technology applied.
Radioisotope dating is a tool. No more. No less. A tool need not be perfect to be useful.
We have problem that the initial potassium/argon ratios might vary, which is a known fact, and without a known baseline the method doesn't work. We have to do assumptions on what the amount of atmospheric argon was at the time of formation and that no non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock. We also have to assume that the material in question have been a closed system for the entire period and that the isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay. We have to assume that the decay constants of 40K are accurately known and that the quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined. The Ar-Ar method only gives relative dates and the J factor have to be calibrated by stones which are of a known age. And that is usually done with the K-Ar method, which makes it close to a circular reasoning really. The Ar-Ar method also routinely gives different ages not only for a stone but for individual minerals, which for one who is skeptic seems real strange. How could the same mineral give different ages way beyond the fault tolerance of the method? The Ar-Ar method never actually measures the initial amount of excess argon, which have been claimed in this thread, but rather if the age spectrum of the analysis is curved (in whatever way) the method assumes that it is due to high temperatures or excess argon. But (at best) that only means that the Ar-Ar method can invalidate some of the samples. It's actually impossible for the Ar-Ar to give wrong dates, it can only confirm or invalidate known ages. Assuming of course that the ratios are actually age related. It's not well established really that the correlation of the ratios is due to a million year long process, that's just an assumption in both K-Ar and Ar-Ar.
Most of the issues you point out have been dealt with by the researchers. I have provided documentation showing how most of them are handed. Of course, should any of those problems show up, the lab doing the testing will "Cherry pick" the sample and refuse to date it.
The discussion here (on pages 5 and 6) presents an example of how Ar-Ar works and one of the ways it can be used to determine a sample will not return a reliable age.
The problem you have isn't just with K-Ar or Ar-Ar. There are literally dozens of radioisotope methods that converge on an age in billions of years, not thousands. The decay rates for all of them have been measured (not assumed) within a fraction of a percent. Their consistency over time has been confirmed by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.
The whole dating game is so subjective. It's to easy to discard measurements and only keep the 'good' values, so the methods becomes more or less worthless. Calling it good science is just so unfair to science that is good.
Sometimes there are statistical outliers in all lab testing.
One of the things I tell my students is they are to report the results they see. Then if those results do not meet expected values, they should determine why. They may do five tests and get results like: 25, 27, 24, 51, 26. That 51 value is an obvious outlier. They may exclude that 51 but they must still include the measurement and explain why it was excluded. (In this case, maybe they were using a counter and didn't clear it after the previous measurement.)
Some years ago, I had occasion to read a paper on the dating of 12 lunar samples sent to different labs. It's been a long time, and I don't recall the exact ages but IIRC, eleven of them returned ages of something like 3.5 billion years. One came back at more like 1.1 billion. Two pages of a six page paper were a discussion of that one sample and efforts to resolve the discrepancy. The end result was that they couldn't tell why that one came back with a different age and they discarded it. In a case like this, I would probably have concluded there was something lab-specific that caused the one outlying result and discard it too.... with full disclosure, of course.
The point is these discordant measurements aren't simply swept under the rug. You wouldn't even know about them if they weren't publically disclosed. They are investigated and reported in the literature. That is a classic example good science.
But have you bought into that paradigm then you sadly enough probably don't even realize that, unless you could look outside your own box. Kuhns thoughts about the age of earth is not why I raised his name, it is his thoughts about normal science, paradigms and scientists objectivity that is a matter for this thread. One should have at least a basic understanding of these things, even if one doesn't agree with Kuhn. Because he raises some good points about the scientific method that needs to be understood.
You seem to believe that I have "bought into that paradigm" without a great deal of examination, testing, questioning, study, debate, thought, and yes... prayer. Understand, I started out as a YEC who was persuaded by (what I consider to be) overwhelming observational evidence that Genesis literalism is wrong not only for scientific reasons but theological and philosophical repercussions that are way outside this scope of this discussion And I am constantly looking outside my "own box" and still learn new things every day.
But there are limitations as to what one can reasonably accept from a standpoint of simple reality. Among them would be proposals that would melt the surface of the planet ... according to the researchers who propose the "solution." Some YEC may think this is a logic error, but IMHO melting the planet is sufficient to make a proposal DOA.
Kuhn's position on the age of the age of the Earth and radioisotope dating is much more relevant to the topic of this discussion than his philosophy of science. If anything your suggestion his opinions on the philosophy of science are important and his expertise as a physicist makes his opinion one that you should seriously consider.
I don't have a "basic" understanding of scientific paradigms and how they are overturned. I teach it. Scientific greatness does not come from conforming to the established paradigm, but by overturning it. It's a long and difficult process that may take only a few years (like Einstein's relativity) or it may take decades (like plate tectonics).
You need to understand that the existing scientific paradigm was once Biblical creation.