The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils found in some other rocks in the region.He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists.In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years.They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them.He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth.Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years.
On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them.These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.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.