Had you posted raw date, we would see the real variability and 'convergence' would be seen as the manufactured result that it is.
Dalrymple had 3 of 8 samples that tested at 34 billion years old (p 79). How do you 'norm' that?
(Dalrymple, G. B., 1984 How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to ‘Scientific’ Creationism In “Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science” vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds).)
These guys are making this stuff come out the way they want it to. That much is patently obvious.
Um, no.
Decay rates are 'normed' by the study of radioactive decay rates in the laboratory (which can be done very accurately). Daughter decay products that are known to not be present in newly solidified rock are what is searched for. Data that doesn't converge is thrown out because it obviously does represent a system that has not remained closed or was otherwise contaminated. Yes, spurious, anomalous results (like a couple measurements of 34 billion-year ages that don't get any cross-validation), that don't have any bearing on the measured quantity in a different sample, are often thrown out, but not because "they don't like them", because there are other reasons to believe the measurement is suspect. That's not fabrication of data, it's the proper way of dealing with statistics.