Radiometric dating vs carbon dating
It looks like this: Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.
Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites: As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods.
Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below: Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments.
However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!
This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
(I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in .) But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production.
In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape.
The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line.
For example: Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.