-=> Rob Mccart wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-

 RM> It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty
 RM> accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
 RM> the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
 RM> of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
 RM> getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..

 JA>And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
  >at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.

 RM> My impression is it doesn't matter what the carbon based matter
 RM> is buried in, they check the age by the break down of the
 RM> radioactive isotope of the carbon which occurs at a relatively
 RM> predictable rate over time, although it's harder to nail down
 RM> as accurately when it gets quite old.

Right - but my point is they 'carbon dated' trees that were buried
during the eruption that came out to be thousands of years old.

At least that's how I remember it... The point is that the
'relatively predictable rate' changes under extreme conditions,
like buried under a volcano eruption, or, oh I don't know, a 
world wide flood?


... Cannot format Drive A:... Formatting Drive C: instead
=== MultiMail/Mac v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (618:250/24)