One thing you might be interested in knowing about the "fossils date the rocks, the rocks date the fossils" line of argument:
There is calibration done on carbon dating, because the rate of carbon formation varies due to levels of solar activity. Also, carbon dating things from after the 1950s/1960s has a huge calibration factor due to nuclear testing, and isn't very reliable.
Throughout most of recorded history, however, the calibration factor in carbon dating doesn't exceed 20%.
Most other dating methods are uncalibrated. They work solely on the decay rates of the minerals.
Furthermore, some dating methods are isochon dating methods, which utilize isotope ratios in addition to individual decay rates, enabling a further cross-check.
To get a "young earth" from dating methods, you not only have to explain why you think they're wrong, but why you think they're all wrong, since they confirm each other (with a few exceptions in experimental cases). Not just why you feel that they're wrong, but how dating methods using isotopes with different half-lives all come up with the same amount that you consider to be "wrong". And if your explanation is that "half lives have changed", why is this no longer observed to occur, and what sort of mechanism could have caused a change in half-lives?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
™ Version 4.2