16 Reasons Radiometric Dating is Flimflam:

1. None of the assumptions used to calculate the age of the Earth are provable, or testable, or even reasonable. They are arbitrary assumptions. It is irrational to be arbitrary. To present the results of calculations based on arbitrary assumptions as though it were scientific is deceptive to say the least.
   

   ---

   

2. The essential factors required to calculate an age include
   1. measuring the element concentrations (measureable using science)
   2. having certainty of element stability over long periods of time (arbitrary assumption alone)
   3. having knowledge of the half-life – how long it takes for the parent radioactive substance to be reduced to the daughter element by 50%  (arbitrary assumption alone)
   4. knowing initial concentration of the parent and daughter radioactive elements, i.e., the initial concentrations on Earth’s first day  (arbitrary assumption alone)
3. No one has ever measured decay rates directly.
4. If assumed decay rates are in the range of billions of years, it is impossible to determine the actual decay rate from measurements over only a few decades.
5. Decay rates are poorly known.
6. Decay rates are affected by the physical environment.
7. Original parent element concentration is not known and no method exists to measure the original concentration.
8. Original daughter decay product concentration is not known and no method exists to measure the original concentration.
9. If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give different results.
10. Because it is common to get wild variations in dates using all the ratiometric dating methods, selectively discarding dates is a common practice within the radiometric dating industry. (Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.)
11. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. The past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present.
12. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations.
13. The age is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
14. Since there is no way in which these assumptions can be tested, there is no sure way (except by divine revelation) of knowing the true age of any geological formation.
15. The convergence of scientific natural evidence actually undermines the validity of radiometric dating.
16. Using non-radiometric indicators (for example: Ocean sedimentation rates, Ocean salinity, Magnetic field decay, Meteorite collisions, Moon dust, Earth–Moon separation), the age of the Earth is compatible with the Genesis account rather than millions and billions of years.

We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.

References:

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/11/the-hoodwinking-art-of-radiometric-dating/#more-5715

http://creation.com/index-fossils

http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

http://creation.com/fossil-taxonomic-manipulations

http://creation.com/fossil-range-expansions

http://creation.com/dodging-living-fossils

http://creation.com/geological-conflict

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove