bill,- seems we are not understanding each other here. I read and reread what I said, and I still cant see what is amiss, other than your disagreement with it. so I will try again to be clearer.
no argument about the data as such.    as I understand it no one as far as I know ,argues with the accuracy of the labs , say, in giving radio carbon results. these results however are given in an interpretive framework that assumes there are no other conditions that may affect the result. as the sample tested is old and obviously not recovered from controlled lab conditions there may well be other factors contributing to the result.
I very much doubt that the cases of contradictory dating is as rare as you believe it, but even a significant amount ought, I would have thought, be cause for rethinking , for a truly impartial [if such can truly be] scientist.
one example of geological anomaly was given by ham, of wood with radio carbon buried in lava lain rock dated far too old by deep time geology. I seem to remember that Nye suggested it had slid beneath, but ham made clear that it was encased in it. how does that scanner fix that?
I understand that coal consistently gives the same result, and diamonds, which have extremely little chance of contamination.
shimrod wants me to cite scientific literature, outside of creation organizations, and probably I could, but am not inclined to take time indulging his fallacy of dismissing information because it comes from a source he rejects. it should also be added that the creationists get their info from secular science sources, often, or their own scientists have sometimes investigated where evolutionists have not done so as they would assume it would be pointless looking, as they already "know" their story is true.
I recall, that it was only accidentally that mary swittzer made the dino discovery of soft tissue, and had a lot of resistance for some time. she asked one detractor what would convince him, and he answered "nothing". well, I suppose he was at least being honest!
I will answer one of shimrods questions. are all scientists deluded?
no, there are many that don't buy into the man made myth of abiogenesis, and microbes to man evolution!.