"If the C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it."
T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson
Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively
University of Uppsala, Sweden
This guy admits he lies. How do you stomach that?
hmm?
In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."
This quote came from this site
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm#Carbon By 1969, enough radiocarbon dates of objects of known age, it became apparent that calibration of the 14C dating method was both possible, and required, to make radiocarbon dates useful for the determination of calendar dates. Indeed, it is often material from prior to 1969 that creationists use as ammunition against the 14C dating method.
That came from this site
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html You proved that point, that quote came from a symposium in 1969, just after it was decided that indeed Carbon 14 dating could be calibrated.
Oh, and you misquoted as well, you cut it, to be honest, should you not put as much of the quote in your post as possible, and put a link to where you acquired the quote, so that it's source could be checked? How fascinating that you chose to do that, not unsurprising, but fascinating all the same.
Nice try though, it's an old quote that is OUTDATED.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day....
This guy admits he lies. How do you stomach that? In context, he is admitting no such thing; he is quoting another person (an Egyptologist, not an evolutionist) who was admitting to lying. [Thanks for the full quote, Aric!]
How do you stomach using misleadinglly-edited quotes to support your position?