It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their applicationand it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already refer to "Other Sources" for more information. As an example of how they are used, radiometric dates from geologically simple, fossiliferous Cretaceous rocks in western North America are compared to the geological time scale.
To get to that point, there is also a historical discussion and description of Stratigraphy fossil dating dating methods. A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging. These are often characterised as the norm, rather than the exception.
I thought it would be useful to present an example where the geology is simple, and unsurprisingly, the method does work well, to show the quality of data that would have to be invalidated before a major revision of the geologic time scale could be accepted by conventional scientists. Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof no scientific method isbut 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. My thanks both him and other critics for motivating me.
Much of the Earth's geology consists of successional layers of different rock Stratigraphy fossil dating, piled one on top of another. The most common rocks observed in this form are sedimentary rocks derived from what were formerly sedimentsand extrusive igneous rocks e. The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy".
Fundamental Stratigraphy fossil dating stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity. A few principles were recognized and specified later. An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geologypublished inand does not differ greatly from a modern formulation:. Note that these are principles.
In no way are Stratigraphy fossil dating meant to imply there are no exceptions. For example, the principle of superposition is based, fundamentally, on gravity. In order for a layer of material to be deposited, something has to be beneath it to support it. 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 relative age of a vertical succession of strata.
There are situations where it potentially fails -- for example, in cave deposits. In this situation, the cave contents are younger than both the bedrock below the cave and the suspended roof above. However, note that because of the " principle of cross-cutting relationships"careful examination of the contact between the cave infill and the surrounding rock will reveal the true relative age relationships, as will the "principle of inclusion" if fragments of the surrounding rock are found within the infill.
Cave deposits also often have distinctive structures of their own e. These geological principles are not assumptions either. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics.
They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable.
In the last or more years of their application, they are often valid, but geologists do not assume they are. They are the "initial working hypotheses" to be tested further by data. Using these principles, it is Stratigraphy fossil dating to construct an interpretation of Stratigraphy fossil dating sequence of events for any geological situation, even on Stratigraphy fossil dating planets e.
The simplest situation for a geologist is a "layer cake" succession of sedimentary or extrusive igneous rock units arranged in nearly horizontal layers.
In such a situation, the " principle of superposition" is easily applied, and the strata towards the bottom are older, those towards the top are younger. For example, wave ripples have their pointed crests on the "up" side, and more rounded troughs on the "down" side.
Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time "geopetal structures""assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption: 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.
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.
You can't deform a structure e. Even in complex situations of Stratigraphy fossil dating deposition, deformation, erosion, deposition, and repeated events, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence of events.
Even if the folding is so intense that some of the strata is now upside down, this fact can be recognized with "way up" indicators. No matter what the geologic situation,
Stratigraphy fossil dating basic principles reliably yield a reconstructed history of the sequence of events, both depositional, erosional, deformational, and others, for the geology of a region. This reconstruction is tested and refined as new field information is collected, and can be and often is done completely independently of anything to do with other methods e.
The reconstructed history of events forms a "relative time scale", because it is possible to tell that event A occurred prior to event B, which occurred prior to event C, regardless of the actual duration of time between them.
Sometimes this study is referred to as "event stratigraphy", a term that applies regardless of the type of event that occurs biologic, sedimentologic, environmental, volcanic, magnetic, diagenetic, tectonic, etc. These simple techniques have widely and successfully applied since at Stratigraphy fossil dating the early s, and by the early s, geologists had recognized that many obvious similarities existed in terms of the independently-reconstructed sequence Stratigraphy fossil dating geologic events observed in different parts of the world.
One of the earliest relative time scales based upon this observation was the subdivision of the Earth's stratigraphy and therefore its historyinto the "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary", and later "Quaternary" strata based mainly on characteristic rock types in Europe.
The latter two subdivisions, in an emended form, still used today by geologists. The earliest, "Primary" is somewhat similar to the modern Paleozoic and Precambrian, and the "Secondary" is similar to the modern Mesozoic. Another observation was the similarity of the fossils observed within the succession of strata, which leads to the next topic. As geologists continued to reconstruct the Earth's geologic history in the s and early s, they quickly recognized that the distribution of fossils within this history was not random -- fossils occurred in a consistent order.
This was true at a regional, and even a global scale. Furthermore, fossil organisms were more unique than rock types, and much more varied, offering the potential for a much more precise subdivision of the stratigraphy and events within it. The recognition of the utility of fossils for more precise "relative dating" is often attributed to William Smith, a canal engineer who observed the fossil succession while digging through the rocks of southern England.
But scientists like Albert Oppel hit upon the same principles at about about the same time or earlier. In Smith's case, by using empirical observations of the fossil succession, he was able to propose a fine subdivision of the rocks and map out the formations
Stratigraphy fossil dating southern England in one of the earliest geological maps Other workers in the rest of Europe, and eventually the rest of the world, were able to compare directly to the same fossil succession in their areas, even when the rock types themselves varied at finer scale.