The creationist literature is rife with pretty funny stories about all those silly evolutionist coming up with wildly wrong dates. Ever hear the one about the silly evolutionist who dated a mollusk as millions of years old, but then the mollusk squirted them in the eye? Hah hah hah, oh those silly evolutionist they are so silly...
It turns out, of course, that dating techniques aren't so simplistic as the creationist writers assume they must be. This is something that real, working geologists have learned over decades of painstaking work. It turns out that if you try to carbon-date a mollusk that lives in a body of water that is high in dissolved limestone (calcium carbonate that itself is millions of years old), their shells absorb some of it and thus skew the c14 results. This is something that geologists have known for decades and know how to account for, as part of their job. But creationist pamphlet/website authors think it's somehow damning to science. (shrug)
Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine. That ain't science, it's "science" - speculation.
No, long ages are a conclusion from the evidence. Young ages are the a-priori dogmatic assertion of young Earth creationists, and that is why you never hear anything about radiometric dating, etc. from them except the supposedly damning (but actually bogus) anomalies like above.
You still have not dealt with the bigger issue of transcendental truth. None of these other things are of any particularly relevance without a rational basis thereof.
No-one has ever postulated a young Earth based solely on the geological evidence.