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.

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

Mike

 * SLMR 2.1a * One good turn gets all the blankets.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)