Re: I'm sorry (@James O' Shea
" Anyone who has a problem with radioisotope dating needs to provide a theory showing how those problems can be accommodated while still having light bulbs work."
No they don't. Anyone may accept the science of radioactive decay without accepting the stories people tell about how the rocks came to be, their initial conditions or the length of time they've been there.
Any form of radiometric dating requires one to assume variables which in most cases cannot be known in any scientific sense; all of them are calibrated using other "dates" produced by uniformitarian reasoning and even then more often than not give conflicting "ages" for the materials being tested (the "correct" age selected being the one most in line with the ideas of the researcher.) Somewhat ironically "carbon dating" used on historically recent items is possibly the most useful variant, not the most problematic.
Rocks may contain clues of sorts, but they don't tell stories and don't have date labels attached - people tell stories about the rocks and those stories are a product of the worldview and presuppositions of the person.
You may not like to accept any of that, and may be 100% convinced that the standard uniformitarian dogma is correct, but that doesn't make it so.