I think that the creationists claims that they're getting short changed by the media must be right because, out of "nearly a full day" of what I'm sure is solid evidence, the article casually mentions a single one (C14 has a short half life), which can be easily refuted by a quick stop by the Talk Origins archive.
And of course they would have to selectively pull out the single logical fallacy that the creationism movement has ever made (because God knows, aside from this one mistake, creationism is perfect, being inspired by God and all):
"What they would say is this C-14 must be the result of contamination," he said. "If pressed to demonstrate that suggestion, they are unable to do that."The logical fallacy being used? Good ole bifurcation and implying that not being able to prove every single niggling detail on demand somehow invalidates the whole theory. And I suppose it's also a logical fallacy that they do ignore such studies. Oh well. If you're going to ruin creationism's good track record with logical fallacies, you might as well do three at once just to show how great creationists are at everything they do, like screwing up.
The article also notes that a new
I'm not holding my breath.