Sorry, this is simply not correct. If numbers were simply random, concordances would be rare, while the spread of discordances would be over multiple orders of magnitude, certainly much larger than the 15% cited by the RATE project. That is, assuming we got any dates at all—under those conditions, isochron dating and step-heating techniques in Ar-Ar dating would not yield dates at all. On the contrary, it is discordances that are rare, and they are usually if not always explainable by known edge cases in the techniques used.
Take a read of the article I linked to earlier—the article “Radiometric Dating—a Christan Perspective” by Roger C Wiens. Take the time to read it properly—don’t just skim it. It explains in detail what the commonest edge cases are and what effects they have on the results concerned.
Note also that it is a departure from the scientific method to just dismiss these edge cases as “rescuing devices.” They have to be falsified rigorously and numerically before they can be discounted.
Besides, even the main YEC organisations no longer claim (since RATE) that radiometric dating is an exercise in cherry-picking random numbers. Instead, they’re claiming accelerated nuclear decay.
As others have pointed out, error ranges for modern radiometric dating techniques are of the order 0.1%.
We’re talking about different methods on both the same and different types of rock, as well as concordance with non-radiometric methods e.g. ice cores, lake varves, and the rate of continental drift as measured by GPS satellites.
Again, you need to start quoting some numbers to back up your points. The half-life of K40 has been determined by methods such as this to an accuracy of about 0.2%.
In any case, the point I was making was that the results you cited were right at the limits of the range for which K-Ar dating is suited. The dates cited were obtained on the instruction of Steve Austin et al by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who clearly stated at the time on their website that they did not have the specialist equipment necessary to perform K-Ar dating on samples less than 2 million years old.
I personally believe that as Christians, whatever we believe about the age of the earth, we need to maintain our position with honesty and integrity, as the Bible has far, far more to say about the need for honesty than about either the age of the earth or evolution. This means, in particular, that any claims that we make that our position is supported by science must meet the standards required by the scientific method, and that any rebuttals we make of scientific methodologies must portray those methodologies accurately, representatively and fairly. It also means that attempts such as this to game the system to prove a point have no place whatsoever in our arguments, and should be vigorously opposed, whether we are young-earth or old.