It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.
This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.
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.
I didn't ask if radiometric dating is valid and my question can't be answered by yes?
I asked specifically about reliability and limitations with the assumption, that the method itself is valid.
OK, well I meant it can be answered with "it's reliable." And your question definitely suggests that you are asking about the validity (a.k.a.
reliability) of the method, mostly because you start by saying "Young earth creationists dismiss radiometric dating as unreliable." If you take that out, you would be on your way to making a better question.
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.
Radiometric dating, for instance, will say that deeper levels of sediment are older than shallower levels of sediment.
It will give similar fossils similar ages, even when the fossils are widely separated.
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?