I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere.
Well if you did read it, some things didn't sink in. The researchers said that the carbon was intrinsic. Now if you want to call him a liar..why not just do and get it over with.
From article: "This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin."
The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position,
Actually, the evolutionists have an even worse tenency...declare something true using such "scientific" term such as "could-of", "might-have beens", and "probablies". At least this researcher is using scientific instruments to measure actual carbon 14 intrinsic to the fossil under study.
Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine.
There have been other threads on age-dating methods such as Potassium/Argon. . Basically, the assumptions associated with these dating methods are highly questionable. . Thus, the dating of anything using such dating methods cannot be trusted. (unless, or course, one likes the dates derived and doesn't mind faulty assumptions)..
Let me know, and I'll post a summary of the problems with methods such as P/A dating.
Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution
Be curious to know what your issues are.
I think that organisms have the ability to react to environmental changes within their own lifetimes, and those changes can alter an organism's genetics, even if in a very slight manner, and those changes can be imparted into the next generation. Takes the randomness out of Darwinian theory. Also, I think the largest problem of standard evolutionary theory is the genetic imprint of instinct - if, once again, organisms can learn during their lifetimes and somehow impart that learning into their genetics, then instinct becomes much easier to pass along.
Emphasis on "appeared" here - there could easily be a mechanism for C14 contanimnation that is not well understood, or you could have the natural background radiation in rocks from other decaying elements such as U-238 cause a continuous re-formation of a certain base level of C14, just as C14 is formed by solar radiation - or C14 could be replenished by other factors such as gamma radiation. We simply don't know enough, but just because this question can't be answered now, it doesn't prove YOUR point. That's scientific analysis by proving with a negative, and we all know how reliable that is.