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.
In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years.
However, this error is not the real error on the date.
In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks.
Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.
From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old.
Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old.
That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).
it matches what they already believe on other grounds. A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field.
The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years.