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is blown away by fact, ignore the fact or present a wilder theory that can be sold as fact while the real facts go unpublished.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.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please back it up. Since it's 'widely known', providing some indepedent corroboration should be easy.
The issue is that no amount of facts can be allowed to get in the way of liberal/atheistic postulations and theorizing
I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack
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.
Previous papers from Dr. Humphreys, one of which I critiqued in detail some months ago, were shoddy in methodology and data analysis; and needed to assume physical impossibilities in order to make them work. Almost evryone I know who does substandard work blames his rejection on 'ideology', when it's just bad science.