[Dominick]

Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!

In items I have dealt with isotope dating is used, this is because the rate of decay of isotopes is well known, and easily calculated based on physical properties.

Strata location is a shortcut used to save time, but often for things I have dealt with, unreliable.

Diffusion also gives us a good clue on age> The longer something has been in a certain type of material, the more of that material migrates into the object. Petrified wood is an example of carbon in wood being replaced with silicon.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

In items I have dealt with isotope dating is used, this is because the rate of decay of isotopes is well known, and easily calculated based on physical properties.

That's assuming a constant isotope decay, but really, we don't know what the rate of decay is for sure except from the time the isotope is first measured. We don't know what conditions may or may not have affected decay in the past.

[Tantumergo]

IMHO there is no accuarate way to date rocks, period.

The main problem with isotope decay techniques is the assumption that the isotope itself, and the resultant isotopes of the decay series, will remain as fixed elements in the rock.

In reality, most heavy isotopes are soluble to varying degrees and therefore their concentration in rock can be dramatically reduced by leaching caused by either submersion or simple exposure to precipitation.

As for diffusion, this is very difficult to obtain a standard for the rate of diffusion of one substance into another, especially when nothing is known of the historic conditions under which that diffusion is known to have taken place.