Age dating geology Sex chat with robot uk
The example used here contrasts sharply with the way conventional scientific dating methods are characterized by some critics (for example, refer to discussion in "Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods" in the Age of the Earth FAQ and Isochron Dating FAQ).A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging.They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable.In the last 200 or more years of their application, they are valid, but geologists do not assume they are.Despite this, the "principle of cross cutting relationships" can be used to determine the sequence of deposition, folds, and faults based on their intersections -- if folds and faults deform or cut across the sedimentary layers and surfaces, then they obviously came after deposition of the sediments.
In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy.
It can't float in mid-air, particularly if the material involved is sand, mud, or molten rock.
The principle of superposition therefore has a clear implication for the age of a vertical succession of strata.
Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof (no scientific method is), but it does work reliably for most samples.
It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.This document is partly based on a prior posting composed in reply to Ted Holden.