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.
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.
It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.
By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field.
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!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.by Tas Walker A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field.The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.(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.