You’re missing some fairly convincing differing methods of radiometric dating of various rock types, thus also, their sequencing within that same geologic column.
Thank you for your short and proper rebuttal.
Now, counterpoint.
How where fossils dated before radiometric dating (I’m assuming potassium-argon) was invented in the 1950s? And did any of the dating done via the radiometric process necessitate scientific revision of the old dates/hypotheses?
where=were, sorry
I was thinking more of radiometric dating in relation to sedimentary rock sequences - which are the predominant beds for fossils - although there are some methods that can be applied directly to artifacts and fossils as well.
Re, “Radiometric Dating” in Wikipedia seems fairly straightforward as to history and mechanics. My only real reservation would be in cross-contamination of numerous minerals composing a given rock type, possibly invalidating that sample. But by the article, these appear to be sufficiently addressed to preclude that as well.
While there doubtless have been some revisions engendered by increasingly accurate geochronological procedures, it seems that their comparisons with other dating methods have held up pretty well overall.
I have a couple of good books on rocks and minerals that compel me toward a bit more research in these areas.
“How where fossils dated before radiometric dating (I’m assuming potassium-argon) was invented in the 1950s? And did any of the dating done via the radiometric process necessitate scientific revision of the old dates/hypotheses?”
_____________
Before geochemical dating, the earliest hypothesis was borne on relative stratigraphy. As methods improved, series were improved. We’re getting it tighter and tighter all of the time, as more and more data is collected and different methods are developed.