posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
I never accused you
of quote mining (except in the wikipedia instance), I accused the reference of being a quote mine. An individual can
unknowingly cite a quote mine, it happens quite often.
My selection of the quoted text is exactly how it appears on the site which I provided the link.
Which is why I provided you with a counter-link to the original text
. In fact, if you had bothered to visit the link I provided
discusses the evolution of this particular quote-mine and actually gathers the 'intermediate stage' from the site you provided. I never accused you
of anything, I did accuse the source of something.
The quote is still
dishonestly edited. It removes all context. It's a reference to Egyptology.
It also served its purpose well for the point I was trying to make and about how science alot of times fudges data so some can win their meal,
Except that is not what the quote states
. It's about
it does not matter if the quote was made about Nile archeology, instead what matters is that the comment was made...
It actually does matter. It's talking about a practice that is found in a certain portion of archeology, and it doesn't even make reference to
specific events. It talks about a general attitude. Unfortunately it doesn't contain any references, so it's anecdotal at best. Of course, that
doesn't seem to matter to you. Why haven't you bothered with providing a single reference to an event where someone actually fudged data on purpose
and was discovered by someone other than honest colleagues reviewing the work.
and I don't even want to bring up Piltdown Man supporting my statements.
Don't, as it was not a fraud made to support evolutionary theory and was actually viewed with skepticism by many immediately and was then debunked by
See how quickly I rebutted ol' Pilty? I've heard it far too many times to even bother with anything longer than that.
your "quote-mining" attack on me was only an attempt to discredit established fact,
I'm sorry, but an off-hand anecdote and your own personal bias doesn't make something established fact. Please demonstrate where the science of
radiometric dating is flawed.
but in turn only made yourself look (how should I say) rather desperate.
No, it made me realize that you were being deceived by deceptive editing. You also deceptively left out information about calibration methods. And
finally you took a single off-hand anecdote as enough evidence to simply state that we can chuck out radiometric dating.
Please, provide some substance to your arguments.