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.
I didn't think you would accept it, which was my original point. And it is not controversial among creationists because of laboratory contamination or the like, it is controversial to them because of their differing flood geology scenarios. If you have evidence of improper collection or laboratory techniques by these authors lets see it.
Good day to you, too. For better or worse, I have to go back to work.
Cordially,