[Right Wing Professor]

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

It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed. If it had been, the referees would undoubtedly have told the authors to examine the possibility that ¹⁴C might be produced endogenously at low levelswithin the earth by nuclear transmutation reactions, and to estimate the rate of such production. The referees might also have obligated the authors to point out that the levels of ¹⁴C are still extremely low, compared with 99% of the material used for radiocarbon dating.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's older, but I found this link to Dr. Baumgardner if you're interested.

John R. Baumgardner, PH.D.

[Dataman]

It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed.

Your logic says that if a paper isn't peer reviewed by those with an evolutionary bias, then the paper can be dismissed. An excellent example of circular reasoning.

Let's try your gymnastics like this: Any element of the evolutionary hypothesis must be reviewed by a committee of French chefs else anyone who eats may dismiss them.

BTW, your comments aren't peer reviewed. Dismissed.

[ThinkPlease]

It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed. If it had been, the referees would undoubtedly have told the authors to examine the possibility that 14C might be produced endogenously at low levelswithin the earth by nuclear transmutation reactions, and to estimate the rate of such production. The referees might also have obligated the authors to point out that the levels of 14C are still extremely low, compared with 99% of the material used for radiocarbon dating.

You also forgot the conclusion. I would have asked them to support their conclusions better, especially that last line. It's jarringly out of place, with not a shred of scientific evidence in the paper to back it up exclusive of any other conclusion you might draw.