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.
From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events.
His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.
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, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.
Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating?(Creationists do not agree with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.) Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered.On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.