[Right Wing Professor]

These guys have no shame. Humphreys, in an article posted a few weeks ago, claimed 'accelerated nuclear decay' to explain the radiopotassium dates of ancient rocks. OK; however, if accelerated nuclear decay happened, how come the 14C in the present samples didn't decay?

Stating the obvious; not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C.

[IpaqMan]

I followed some links in Talkorigins.org and found that there is significant research being done to try to account for "anomalous" quantities of C14 being found in coal deposits. The theories range from fungi to local radioactive deposits. The possibility of contamination was not raised.

[fishtank]

No one has been able to remove the "contamination"?

[Havoc]

Stating the obvious; not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C.

This is what passes for intelligent and knowledgeable input? It is known widely that deep coal deposits contain large amounts of C14. And it has been known for some time. That isn't the issue. The issue is that no amount of facts can be allowed to get in the way of liberal/atheistic postulations and theorizing. If the theory is blown away by fact, ignore the fact or present a wilder theory that can be sold as fact while the real facts go unpublished. You want to argue that things don't get peer reviewed or published, yet it is minds like yours who stop scientific studies such as this from being peer reviewed and published because the facts are inconvenient. You can't have it both ways; but, we know you want it both ways.

Try an honest and forthright argument sometime.

[Dataman]

Stating the obvious; not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C.

Right. Carbon 14 measurements are incorrect unless they support the presuppositions of evos. That's scientific!

[cookcounty]

".........not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C."

A problem with this line of (ad homnium) argument is that the peer-review system is a closed system. The only way to become a "peer" is to swear to a particular intellectual orthodoxy and become an advocate for a special set of dogma. If you refuse, you won't be peer-reviewed, and you won't be published, either.

Other than that, your reasoning is stellar.