Yes it is, but not for the reason of improper collection or laboratory techniques. Unless there is some legitimate reason to question those methods the conclusion that their sample was contaminated is completely unwarranted.
"It was not our intent to be self-serving in that investigation. However, we deeply resent any accusations that our field and laboratory techniques and procedures were remiss and that we contaminated the rock samples. We have spent the majority of our professional careers involved in laboratory work. We know how to follow and develop procedures to avoid contamination. It is easy for someone to sit in front of a computer and claim contamination when he has not read the original reports or does not know what was done! It is the height of arrogance and laziness and we reject such allegations as spurious."
Cordially,
It is controversial, even among anti-evolutionists, for that very reason.
Unless there is some legitimate reason to question those methods the conclusion that their sample was contaminated is completely unwarranted.
It's completely warranted.
I cannot accept the veracity of this claim. It is controversial even among anti-evolutionist circles because of the possibility of contamination.
That you're also willing to cite as evidence man/dinosaur tracks which are also discounted among many anti-evolutionist writers (as well as mainstream geologists) makes me question the legitimacy of your complaints.
In fact, it brings me to the conclusion that you are ready to believe any claim against modern science, no matter how farcical, just because someone who is opposed to evolutionary theory says it's so.
Good day.