Who the rock dating
From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events.His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified.Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be.
The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified.
He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.
The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.
What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years?And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.