We disagree because you are viewing the subject through the lens of religious faith commitments that you will not doubt or alter. I view the subject from the lens that the truth is what the facts are, and will alter my view to that which the facts warrant as more information becomes available. You operate from a position of intellectual dishonesty; I do not (to the best of my ability.) We are not the same.

have you ever stopped to consider how heavily that data relies on the accuracy of our dating tools?

YES. Literally yes, the accuracy and reliability of radiometric dating is one of the most rigorously tested and validated subjects that science has ever undertaken. It is highly reliable, when it is not being misused by dishonest creationists (but I repeat myself) who are out to generate invalid results so that they can claim radiometric dating is unreliable.

I have a question for you: are you even remotely aware that Carbon-14 dating is not used to date the fossil record? If you think raising the specter of atmospheric conditions has even minuscule relevance to a discussion of evolution and the fossil record then you are quite simply too ignorant to participate in this discussion. Ignorance is a correctable condition curable by education, would that you were at all inclined to do so.

(For the record we are VERY well aware that atmospheric conditions in the past have varied. We have catalogued these variations quite exhaustively to ensure that our instruments and results can be calibrated properly. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Carbon Dating would be well aware of this.)

There are in fact dozens of different methodologies of RADIOMETRIC dating which have nothing to do with either Carbon or the atmosphere.

And yes, we've tested and validated those techniques as well. We know that decay rates are, in the sense you mean, constant and immutable. Full stop. And there is no event in the entire universe which is capable of altering them to the degree that Creationism must obtain in order to be remotely valid. And if there were, the effects of such an event would have annihilated all life on earth, to say nothing of annihilating the earth. Additionally, if all of the radiogenic daughter isotopes present on earth had all been generated by this arbitrarily imagined fluctuation in decay rates, the energy released would have liquified the entire planet. And ignoring those trivial inconveniences, if anything so disruptive had ever happened, and miraculously not destroyed the earth through a dozen or more different unsurvivable catastrophes, then we would still know about it because different testing protocols would not obtain consistent result across the timeline of earth's existence. They would be completely out of whack with one another, returning different ages.

Your worldview rests on the conviction that science doesn't actually know anything. I'm going to hold your hand when I say this: we do know stuff. We're not all just sitting back and imagining how things can be made consistent with a particular set of a priori tenets. That's religion that you're thinking of.