Sorry if this has been addressed, but I wanted to start with these "assumptions." I have not yet read the whole thread, but will catch up.
Assumptions
1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We know that contamination can and does happen. We know how to identify and account for it.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. Not only does the initial concentration NOT need to be zero. We can DETERMINE how much there initially was. Most of the time it WAS NOT ZERO.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We already KNOW that decay rates have been constant for FAR, FAR longer than is compatible with YEC. If you'd like to know how, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. However, scientists do not assume that it has always been constant.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.
Change like what? How do you know it could effect the clocks? Have you found something that does effect them? Because scientists have tried everything they can think of, and NOTHING significantly changes the clocks of the elements we use to date the earth.
Further, this is a moot point, because we already know that they have been constant for at least hundreds of millions of years.
Carbon dating assumptions
1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. In fact, they know it hasn't been constant. They even know how much it has varied (at least over the last 50k years). That's why we have to calibrate it with dendrochronology, lake varves, and ice cores.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. In fact, they know that it has varied, and still varies. They even know why it varies more in one location than another. That's why they need DIFFERENT calibration charts for different parts of the ocean.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. This is getting redundant. Do you know where your apologists get these "assumptions?" They are problems that scientists DOCUMENTED AND SOLVED DECADES AGO.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. We don't need to know if it has NEVER changed. We can only test it for the last 50k years or so. And we know it's been constant at least that long. If it wasn't, then readings we take would not be consistent across tree rings, lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. So, if you want to propose that the rate has changed, then you also must explain how those other methods have ALSO changed, through vastly different mechanisms, in JUST such a way, that they all match up.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.
This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. In fact, they have to account for the contamination introduced BY THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS. They also know how it gets contaminated, how to account for it, and when and why to expect it.
If you would like to discuss any of these in more detail, pick ONE to start out with. I don't care about quotes, because I don't trust apologist quotes--I have seen how they literally, and repeatedly lie about the quotes. So don't use them.
I also want YOUR words. You can use a link to SUPPORT your arguments, and small snippets of quoted text ( no more than a couple sentences) but if you just post a wall of copied text, I'm done. It's against the rules of the forum to do that, anyway.
Also, scientists use the word "assumption" in a much different sense than do laymen. If a scientist says something can be assumed, they have good reason to think so--it's backed by plenty of evidence. Not that it matters in this case, because they literally do not assume any of those things on your list.
And it's been like that for DECADES.