Replies

Most scientists are aware that carbon is a dirt-common and highly reactive element. It gets around.

Maybe so, but we are not talking about a little C14 contamination

From article: Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

What is going on behind the unexpanded "usually" in "usually offered no explanation?" My money is that no samples can reasonably be expected to be utterly ¹⁴C dead. Again, it's nothing that helps ICR. Things that do not help ICR do not make it into their articles and that's just one example.

ICR is not famous for their pristine scientific scholarship. Next week the age of the earth will be the same plus one week, the interpretations of ¹⁴C dating will be the same, ICR will still be a crackpot website, and the ultimate triumph of literal Genesis creationism will be not one bit closer than it was last week.