"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 toward 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 And if it is completely "out-of-date," we just drop it.'" – T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology." [This source is from 1970.]
Indeed, most of the radiocarbon results are tossed out:
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators." – J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon." [This source is from 1977.]
Sorry, this is total BS. Just look at the age of your sources. Radiocarbon dating wasn't even invented until the late 1940s! Don't you think things have advanced just a little since the 1970s?
I have done far more radiocarbon dates than you can probably count. You, I suspect, have done none. You, I suspect, know next to nothing about this subject--without google.
I can picture you casting about the web looking for anything to support your position, not knowing what the actual facts are, and whether the quotes you find are accurate or not. Quote mining, I think they call it.
If you want to debate radiocarbon dating, I will take you on one-to-one, no searching the web for supporting links or sources. Real time, mano-a-mano, as they say a bit south of here.
You up to the challenge, or do you have to rely on the web for your "knowledge"?
Yep, it's pretty bad.
Woodmorappe responds to Morton.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Woodmorappe on National Geographic
http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp