After reading the original article in Modern Reformation and J.K. Reed’s response, I stumbled upon this article. I must say, however, that the response here is quite rash, showing some ignorance of the geological principles behind Campbell et al’s arguments. To put it briefly:
1) Flood geologists also defer to science to interpret their history (in this case, the creation/flood accounts), using geological principles to refine the story where it is silent (e.g. cause of a post-Flood ice age).The difference is in their literary understanding of that history.
2) You have entirely missed the point of Campbell et al’s examples. It does no good to reference articles on individual cases where these dating methods yield anomalous results. You must rather prove why within a Flood geology model, these data are internally consistent. How does the Flood model predict, for example, that thousands of radiometric dates across the ocean floor should get systematically older toward the continents (away from ridges)?