The methods that caused the early geologists to conclude that the so-called "biblical timeline" was a load of hooey were much simpler:
1) Observe a natural process creating something (sand on a beach, erosion exposing more of underlying granite, ad infinitum, ad nauseum).
2) Measure the rate at which the process is proceeding.
3) Measure how much (sand, exposed granite, ad infinitum, ad nauseum).
4) Back calculate how long it's been going on.
Through thousands upon thousands of examples, conclude that the idea that the earth is 6-10,000 years old is errant nonsense.
Your misinformation or willful ignorance on dating methods doesn't even have to enter into the question.
>>What by the dating methods of man. Fossils date the rocks, rocks date the fossils, wow that is science.
Or do you mean by the flawed methods of decay dating that assume that the material that is dated was pure at one time, that assume that the decaying magnetic field does not have an effect on the decay rate of the elements.<<
You would think that if a magnetic field changed the rate of of decay that we would be able to the decay rate in the lab since we can produce magnetic fields many times stronger than the earth.
Trivia: Decay was very confusing to me until I learned about the proton and neutron drip lines. The forces that hold the nucleus together are in balance based on mass and charge.
If you have too many protons you have too much charge for the mass (the proton drip line) if you have too many neutrons you have too much mass for the charge and you fall below the neutron drip line.
Basically the forces in the nucleus need to be balance for the atom to not decay and heat or magnetism doesn't compare with forces from the protons and neutrons so the decay rate is constant unless you do something nuclear, like shoot in extra neutrons.