Of course not. Secular dating of rocks can never be trusted. If radiometric dating works for supposed "old" rocks, it should work for new rocks. That's simple logic, the kind that creation scientists have a much better handle on than their evolutionist nemeses.
Dr. David Plaisted demolishes 100+ years of evo fallacies on his simple-to-read but 100% technically accurate treatise of the subject:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Of course, as a creation scientist, Plaisted's great accomplishments and single-handed demolition of thousands of evo science arguments will never be recognized by the evolutionist religion.
The era of evolutionist dominance in science will soon end, though. The vibrant field of creation science and reasonable discussion fora like this will see to that.
Do you understand why potassium-argon dating should not be used for new rocks? Hint: It has to do with the very long half-life of potassium 40.
Would you use a calendar to time a 100-meter footrace? Would you use a yardstick you bought at Home Depot to measure the size of a bacteria? Of course not. If you understand that "simple logic," then you will understand why it is currently impossible to acccurately date rocks less than 100,000 years old with the potassium-argon technique.
I looked at Dr. Plaisted's explanation for problems with the potassium-argon method of measurement. I'll be kind and just say that I'm not very impressed by his argument.