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.

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

---
 * SLMR Rob  * She's goin' ta BLOW Captain, and nothin' kinna STOP it!
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)