Radiocarbon Dating: the usage of Carbon-14 (14C) has never been a valid method for determining age

Long ago a nuclear engineer and professor that worked at a (now a few prestigious universities and is head of a department) major/top university (name and identity withheld for various reasons) gave a compelling presentation as to why radiocarbon dating has never been a valid methodology for dating organic material. In their presentation they explained in detail how 14C comes to be via high energy (predominantly solar rays) interaction with atmospheric nitrogen.

They explained further how there are various assumptions made using information that unfortunately much of science considers as static (non-changing) variables... Things such as solar distance from Earth, position of our solar system in relation to other high energy celestial bodies, and various and many other considerations. These assumptions are precisely that: assumptions. They are extremely unreliable and based on our very short time with "advanced" instrumentation, there is a high likelihood that many things on our planet - and outside - are not as they seem.

Ultimately archeological dating and any of the sciences that attempt to use Carbon-14 dating simply cannot be trusted as infallible or even as sufficiently reliable so as to use for seriously determining wide reaching timelines for anything.

It was a very enlightening presentation that has helped me to understand that anything that attempts to set ancient dates is probably inaccurate or has a high probability of being considerably wrong.

With discussions of high yield energy weapons or other events in ancient literature and seeming evidence of a lot of various high energy events happening both here on Earth and on the Moon, etc. it may cross one's mind as to how this might also impact nitrogen → carbon-14 on Earth... Isn't it plausible that these could also lead to some additional serious points of error?

Apparently there is some discussion out there both pro and contra this. Today I was surprised to find another compelling reason to disbelieve radiocarbon dating:
(YouTube: Does Carbon-14 Dating Go Beyond Biblical History?)

Additionally, while some of the folks poo-poo the concept here, there are others that validate the concern to some degree:

Clearly this topic could be expanded into a doctoral thesis that I believe could blow the doors off of the topic and completely obliterate most dating options that build off of static assumptions.

The video contra this topic is very weak and obviously the gal doing this has her head so far down into dogma that she's not really able to come up for air. I really couldn't personally stomach watching her video entirely when I saw her discounting (not acknowledging) very clear ancient Earth evidences of high energy yield devices and/or events.

At the end of the day the argument against assumptions is just too insurmountable to trust current dating methodologies across the board due to both known and unknown failures in assumptions.

@Soretna , good that you have highlighted this's high time that this faulty , inaccurate method for estimating timelines is discarded .