It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.
This document is partly based on a prior posting composed in reply to Ted Holden.
Radiometric dating is very reliable in theory - the decay of radioactive materials is very-very predictable.
But like any other bit of experimental physics "the difference between practice and theory is small in theory but large in practice." It's especially tricky for Carbon14 dating (which most recent stuff relies on).
And one thing that the young Earth creationists need to explain if they're going to be down on radiometric dating--why do all subterranean pieces of dead organic matter have lower relative abundances of Carbon-14 than ones exposed to the atmosphere?
What is their proposed mechanism for these abundances changing?
Keep in mind that we much prefer questions that show that the poster put some effort into formulating them, which yours doesn't.
(If you like, we can discuss how to improve your question in Physics Chat.) The main thing is that it's consistent with other forms of dating.
It can be answered with just a "yes." That's generally a sign of a bad question.
It would be much better if you included some specific objections that have been made and asked whether they are valid, and why.
Radiometric dating, for instance, will say that deeper levels of sediment are older than shallower levels of sediment.