These are often characterised as the norm, rather than the exception.
I thought it would be useful to present an example where the geology is simple, and unsurprisingly, the method does work well, to show the quality of data that would have to be invalidated before a major revision of the geologic time scale could be accepted by conventional scientists.
is, as mentioned earlier, the technique of piecing together the informational content of separated outcrops.
When information derived from two outcrops is integrated, the time interval they represent is probably greater than that of each alone.
The Grand Canyon landscape is geologically young, being carved within just the last 6 m.y.
There are younger geologic deposits in Grand Canyon too, such as the Ice Age fossils found in caves, a 1000-year-old lava flow in the western canyon, and even the debris flow deposits that continue form each year.
Now imagine that you come upon a formation like this: What do you think of it? How can you make any conclusions about rock layers that make such a crazy arrangement?
Nonetheless, how geologists determine the age of rocks is a mystery to many members of the public, and even to many park rangers [see Photo 2], guides, and others who share the canyon’s geologic story with others. ” when geologists say a Grand Canyon rock formed 270 million years ago.
Further confusion arises when one publication or geologist says, for example, that the Kaibab Formation is 270 m.y. The same questions arise for the other rock units at Grand Canyon. This article will answer these questions by providing a short primer on geologic dating methods and how they were applied to Grand Canyon rocks.
The basis for assuming that like fossils indicate contemporary formation is faunal succession.
However, as previously noted, times of volcanism and metamorphism, which are both critical parts of global processes, cannot be correlated by fossil content.