You are wrong. I have been involved in numerous discussions with folks who deny the accuracy of radiometric and radiocarbon dating. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work, and have studied it for a number of years. The "talking points" I see on these threads are all from creationist websites, and consist of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. I can tell the difference.
Why do we not see any scientific points made? Why do we only see creation "science" trying to pass itself off as junk science?
I think people who oppose radiometric dating on these threads are doing apologetics, not science.
If you don't agree, post some of the arguments against radiocarbon dating and I will be happy to respond.
(If I'm still around. The Luddites are getting to me.)
I'm not trained in the field, but others are and although there are not as many "doubting" radiometricians as there are like you in your camp, I suggest that as the scientist you claim to be that you begin questioninng your beliefs and your "science" - science is not written in stone you know. Genius men of science of the past really and truly believed in the theory of humors causing disease for example...or understanding human behavior by measuring skulls....phrenology was it?
When I have time I will look up the "other side' in your field however. Are you familiar with the critical literature or is your field one sided and intellectually blocked to any inquiry?