I have to ask again....how do we know? How do we know light traveled at the same speed it does today 40 million years ago? Or that the way we date rocks today has any connection to the way they decayed 110 million years ago? IMO, it's a logical conclusion that scientists have "faith" that the present is the key to the past.
Similar questions might be, how do we know that the rocks we see weren't marshmallows millions of years ago? How do we know that gravity didn't used to push things away instead of pull towards?
The simplest answer I suppose would be....why would things be different before than they are now? We have no reason to think the laws of the universe changed and if you have to bend reality in this way to maintain your beliefs then those beliefs are in dire need of revision.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a Creator and He gave us the tools of curiosity, logic, and reason. Would this Creator be angered by people for using these tools to explore and try to understand aspects of His creation? - of course not. Would this Creator hold in higher regard those who set aside his gifts of logic and reason in order to deny the evidence of His creation? - of course not.
In order to delude yourself into thinking that the earth is young, you have to deny a lot more than radiometric dating. Non-radiometric dating methods such as dendrochronology, historical records, ice cores, varves, plate techtonics, Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating, and fossils all agree and support one another. What you are suggesting is that God is stupid and a deceiver, and that He had to cast spell after spell to lie to us - He had to alter every radiometric isotope, every varve, ice layers, historical records, etc, in order to deceive the human race. So when you deny scientific evidence, you are accusing God of being incompetent and a deceiver.