I mentioned the RATE studies in another thread. This is one of the most commonly embraced explanations by evangelical creationists at this time. As far as I know, the Geoscience Research Institute (which is Adventist) holds some strong reservations about this theory.

Radioisotope dating of rocks in the Grand Canyon



I have also seen a study where rocks were dated from lava flow with a known age and yet the tests' results were vastly different from the historic records of the rock formation.

I notice none of the ages are 6-10,000 years though...

One of the studies I was reading tested lava flow known to be 11 years old. The K-Ar dating resulted in a projected date of 350,000 ± 50,000 years, which is far beyond the 11 year old age which was known, established and accepted. From what I understand, for K-Ar dating to be accurate the rocks must be over 100,000 years old. Thus using the method to date rocks only 11 years old will give erroneous results. This is because a small amount of contamination will throw the age off dramatically. If the rocks are actually over 100,000 years old, the small amount of contamination they may have received when they were formed will have virtually no bearing on their tested results. Here is the point. If the earth is no older than 10,000 years old, the contamination the rocks received when formed or during the flood would throw off the test results. So we must assume the rocks are at least 100,000 years old in order to assume we are getting anything close to accurate results. Every radiometric dating technique has problems with contamination. If the rocks are actually young (less than 10,000 years) the contamination is going to throw off the date to such a degree to render the testing technique useless. So we have circular reasoning. We must assume the rocks are older than 100,000 years in order to expect our radiometric dating to render useful results.