"...I call that a faith position , even if you do object to that."

Pete- It is beyond anything as simple as 'my objection'. Calling it "a faith position" is a complete distortion of what multi thousands of scientists do and how they comprehend the very concept of what they do.
If you don't grant any scientists even the the idea of being neutral & unbiased, how can you believe anything they tell us on any subject? As I said, "faith" and "belief" are words which MUST have a clear meaning, or we can't even discuss what it means to do something other than 'believe' by 'faith'!..(and perhaps WE cannot, as you insist that 'faith' covers science as well as religion.)

"do you deny that scientists have come up with different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data ?."

That covers too much.... of course there are some differences when measuring SOME things... but the goal of science is to determine what differences are relevant.
Do YOU deny that water treatment plants, when testing for impurities in your drinking water, may get 'different' readings? At some point you have the trust them to be able to measure the relevant things accurately enough to tell you that your water is safe, instead of just putting in a filter and asking you to "have faith". They test.. test again... compare their tests to those of other laboratories in different places... and they constantly refine the tests. They don't ask you to just 'believe' that that stream is safe... it might have been polluted since last week. The tests must be as accurate as possible, even if they sometimes have "different readings using different methods and interpretation of the data".

".. trouble is, a lot of that dating was done at highly regarded labs."

Umm...yes..but it is my impression that very few, if any, labs run by committed Creationist scientists do significant basic research. Most of the creationist 'scientists' spend most of their time looking for reasons NOT to accept 'highly regarded' dating procedures that don't seem to agree with their interpretation of Genesis. A lot of that non-acceptance is simply ignoring vary basic science in favor of evidence 'interpreted' in non-standard ways.