He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified.
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 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.Obwohl in unseren Breitengraden der Winter gerne mal bis Ostern anhält, werden auch wir nicht von sommerlichen Hitzewellen verschont.
Wie Sie denen im hektischen Büroalltag entspannt kontern können?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.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.