Unfortunately, I can't give you any citations, but the notion that radiometric decay is reliable is demonstrably false. Example: one of the scientists who studied the eruption of Mt. St. Helens went back after things had settled down, and took one of the rocks from the lava flow. In other words, it was a brand new rock. He sent it to a dating lab, and they said that this brand new rock was many millions of years old. Other people have split a rock into three pieces, sent each piece to a different lab, and got back three wildly different dates. Some people might claim that just a few examples don't mean much, but in this case they do. Consider: almost everything in evolution is related to the dating of rocks. If the dating process can be demonstated to be inaccurate just a few times, how can one be absolutely sure that the process is accurate when there is no other way to verify the result?