Relative geologic age is established, based on such evidence as the order in which layers of sediment are stacked, with the younger layer originally on top.
By using the principles of relative geologic age, the sequence of geologic events -- what happened first, what happened next, what happened last -- can be established.
The combination of these two types of geologic ages makes a complete record of earth's geologic history in terms of the order of events and in terms of how many years ago each event occurred.
Relative geologic age refers to the order in which geologic events occurred.
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.
It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their , and it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already (refer to "Other Sources" for more information).Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof (no scientific method is), but it does work reliably for most samples.It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.As an example of how they are used, radiometric dates from geologically simple, fossiliferous Cretaceous rocks in western North America are compared to the geological time scale.To get to that point, there is also a historical discussion and description of non-radiometric dating methods.