There can’t be any radiocarbon present, therefore; if it is found, it must be from contamination—no matter how carefully the specimens were checked.
(This is one of several ways they have to escape falsification.) If coal and these other substances do contain radiocarbon, though, burning them into the atmosphere should not affect radiocarbon dates (at least to the degree they are concerned about).
Radiocarbon dating is not affected seriously yet, they claim, but will be by 2020 if emissions continue.
Incidentally, lab techs already have to correct for another historical contingency: The fraction of carbon-14 in the atmosphere decreased after the Industrial Revolution with the rise of fossil fuel combustion.
The article does, however, point out some of the assumptions that go into any dating method.
In radiocarbon dating terms this makes the atmosphere appear older, which is reflected in the tissues of plants taking in during photosynthesis, and their products such as cottons.
If it is not, then that is prima facie evidence that coal is not millions of years old.
Evolutionists routinely dismiss claims of radiocarbon in coal, diamonds and dinosaur bones, because they already “know” from secularism’s moyboy dogma that these substances “are” millions of years old.
The scientists seem unaware of carbon-14 reported from coal (9/25/03), diamonds, and dinosaur bones (see 6/18/15).
We’re glad to see their agreement that coal “should” be radiocarbon dead.
An article in Phys Org claims that radiocarbon dating is becoming more unreliable as carbon emissions increase. Fossil fuel emissions could soon make it impossible for radiocarbon dating to distinguish new materials from artefacts that are hundreds of years old. Fossil fuels like coal and oil are so old that they contain no carbon-14.
Carbon released by burning fossil fuels is diluting radioactive carbon-14 and artificially raising the radiocarbon ‘age’ of the atmosphere.… When their emissions mix with the modern atmosphere, they flood it with non-radioactive carbon.