-=> Mike Powell 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.

 MP> Did something about the volcanic erruption prevent them from being
 MP> dated properly?  I had never heard that before.

Quick correction on my part. I checked into that Mt. St. Helens 
thing again, and I had it wrong. The "thousands of years old" 
dates came from older wood the eruption kicked up, not the new 
trees from 1980. Just wanting to be accurate, so I'll own that one.

As for the bigger picture, my worldview starts with Scripture, 
so that's the lens I'm looking through. And honestly, big 
catastrophic events can really throw off the neat-and-tidy 
assumptions scientists use when they try to reconstruct the past. 
That's why I don't push blind faith - I just try to look at the 
actual evidence and the assumptions behind it.



... What's worse than raining cats and dogs?  Hailing taxis!
=== MultiMail/Mac v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (618:250/24)