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 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.They are applied by geologists in the same sense that a "null hypothesis" is in statistics -- not necessarily correct, just testable.
My thanks to both him and other critics for motivating me.
his document discusses the way radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are used to establish the conventional geological time scale.
It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their , and it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already (refer to "Other Sources" for more information).
The layers of rock are known as "strata", and the study of their succession is known as "stratigraphy".
Fundamental to stratigraphy are a set of simple principles, based on elementary geometry, empirical observation of the way these rocks are deposited today, and gravity.