Start by looking at the article I linked to, which shows that U/Pb ratios in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood samples were way too high, resulting in an age for the Triassic samples that differs from the age assumed by evolutionists by a factor of at least 760.
Another line of evidence would be the Pb and He retention rates of Precambrian zircons dated by evolutionists at 1.5 billion years. Those retention rates were consistent with an age of thousands of years, and not consistent with an age of 1.5 billion years.
Another line of evidence would be the discovery of soft tissue, high protein levels, cartilage, and, most recently, DNA in dinosaur bones. The original discovery was by accident because this stuff isn't supposed to be able to survive for 65+ million years, the age evolutionists assume dinosaurs to be, and so no one was looking for it.
You mention radioactive dating. The problem there is that the entire range of measurements appears to not be always disclosed. Only the measurements that fit the accepted theory might be disclosed. We know this is true because of the instance documented in this article:
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff/
In that instance, a single formation was dated as low as .52 million years, and as high as 230 million years. The full range of scatter only got exposed because three rival labs were slinging mud at each other in the open scientific literature. Without that rivalry, and without the need to redate the rock because the date originally settled on didn't fit the later finding of hominid fossils underneath the formation, w3e would never have known that the total spread of dates ranged from .52 to 230 million years.