I found an article that argues, among other things, that radiometric dating methods are not concordant and dates that are in disagreement with other data are not published. Some of the quotes in the article are from non-creationist journals. Are the following claims true?
DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. Mauger, East Carolina Univ., "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 or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17
DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Joan C. Engels, "It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Journal of Geology,Vol.79, p.609
RECENT LAVA @ 22M, C.S.Nobel & J.J.Naughton, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, "The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent. ...these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", Science, Vol.162, p.265
PRECISION DATING? ROGER LEWIN, Ed. Research News, Science, â€œThe calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 Â± 0.26 million years, which, to anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating, has a ring of comforting precision about it. ...41 separate age determinations... which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years ...after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments.â€ BONES OF CONTENTION, p.194
ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.
"THE IMPERFECT ART OF ESTIMATING GEOLOGICAL TIME" BATES MCKEE, U. of Washington, â€œIf the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, â€˜goodâ€™ dates are those that agree with the field data. ...the geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results.â€ CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27
"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better under-standing, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."
C14 INCREASING ! H. E. Suess, UCLA, "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority, ...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine. ...The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." Science, Vol.157, p.726