Radiometric age dating accuracy
Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them.These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field.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.What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
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.It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory.Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified.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?