Is there evidence that dating methods MUST be invalid?

You know what i will probably recieve even more hatred towards myself by doing this but im sorry i have to at least give it a go. You know it always hits me that if all this evolution was so true and so obvious then there would not be any doubt among the leading evolutionists. But when i read these quotes of evolutionists they are not taken out of context but rather just showing that evolution like all other theories have problems. And in this particular issue aswell for dating methods and ages of the earth. So yes its true im not so scientific. But the more i read about creation, the more i learn. So lets see what we got here. If the dates of the earth are rock solid fact. Then of course evolutionists wouldnt dare speak out on then. Many people say well those quotes are from decades ago. But nothing has really changed. Evolution has become somewhat of a stagnet theory. Moreover are you people who call this quotes old and irrelevant questioning the evolutionists intergrity or intelligence?. I believe these men were just more honest about evolution and werent scared to speak out. Today of course no evolutionists would consider anything against the fact of evolution.However..."All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists" - William D. Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University"Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals" - Prof J.F. Evernden (University of California)"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained" - Richard L Mauger (East Carolina University)"Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in many instances the isotopic ages is not neccesarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to an over-skeptical attitude by some field geologists" - Peter E. Brown & John A. Miller (Geological Society of London Special Publication,No 3, 1969,p137)"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established...This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such "living fossils" obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence" - William D.Stansfield (California Polytechnic State University)Almeyda - Facts dont speak for themselves. When a date differs from that expected. The evolutionist readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The application of such reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Dating methods do have there pros obviously. But evolutionary observations must fit there framework. Including that the earth is billions of yrs old. Evolutionists who are supposedly objective, select the observations to fit the basic evolutionary belief system. Evolutionists measuer isotope concentrations and these can be measured accurately, however the "age" is calculated using assumptions about the past. And presuppositions about origins, history and how this earth has come to be over eons of time. I also read at AiG that forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why??. If the techniques were absolutely objective & reliable such information should not be necesary. Presumably the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on wheather they have obtained a 'good' date. Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods alot better than evolutionists who claim that they can use dating proceses in the present to prove the earth to be billions of yrs.Heres a AiG article on radiometric dating. Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? | Answers in Genesis

- Different dating techniques should consistently agreeIf the dating methods an objective and reliable means of determining ages then they should agree within the limits of experimental error. However with radiometric dating the different techniques often give different results. All sorts of reasons are suggested for bad dates but this again shows posterior reasoning. Techniques that give bad results that can be dismissed because they dont agree with the observers presuppositions about origins and age of earth cannot be considered objective. In Australia, wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000yrs old. But the basalt was dated by the potassium-argon method at 45 millions yrs old.- Carbon datingCarbon dating in many cases embarrass evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of earths history. A specimen older that 50,000yrs should have too little 14C to measure.

Arriving at 'dates' depends upon assumptions, This may be why i believe they are 'invalid' or 'unreliable' because if it could be proven then assumptions would not be needed only facts speaking for themselves. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest assumption used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?- Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original 'daughter' elements in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.--- However One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.- Evolutionists have also assumed that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.--- The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem. Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.- They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.--- How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly 'date' as being old rocks.

Understood 100%.