Is there any real evidence to support what you’re saying? Radiometric or radiocarbon dating is not an exact science, which leaves room for doubt. How many findings of these scientists were thrown out until they got the results they were looking for?
Yes, there is a lot of evidence. In my field (archaeology) I do a lot of radiocarbon dating--nearly 600 so far. And I don't throw out a lot of results at all!
What we do when we data a site is look for stratigraphy (natural soil layers), and cultural components. We then date each of these based on cultural items (bead or point styles, for example), superposition (deeper layers are older), and radiocarbon dating. And we don't do just one date--on my last major excavation I obtained 32 dates. In one case I got a date 1500 years older than all the rest; I did several more dates in that stratum until I understood what was going on. That older date was indeed supported by other dates, as well as cultural differences.
As far as radiocarbon dating not being an exact science and there being room for doubt: which would you prefer to bet on, the 99% or the 1%? Radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating have been well tested and shown to be reliable. The different radiometric dating methods agree with each other and correlate well with other methods of dating. This is the type of thing that if you were making a bet, you would bet the rent money on the techniques being largely accurate rather than inaccurate.
I provided some good links upthread. The first one is written from a Christian perspective and hosted on a Christian website. Take a look at least that one.