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.
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.
Yes, that’s what I meant. You notice I didn’t write anything about using radiometric dating on the fossils themselves, I just wrote that it was used to date them.
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.
That’s not an example.
Science, as we’ve seen in the posted article and in every day scientific work, is often full of surprises. That’s because of its very nature of questioning assumptions and trying to answer those questions.
The structure of DNA was very surprising to Watson & Crick, for example. They were looking for a simple way to describe the origin of life from chemical processes, and got a lot more than they bargained for. So much so, in fact, that Francis Crick proposed panspermia as a way out of his problems with OOL vs. DNA.
If you are correct, there have been no such surprises in dating of geological strata from radiometric dating. That is surprising in itself, and points to other problematic conclusions.
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.
Let’s get a better source than Wikipedia.
https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/methods/home.html