You are ignoring the fact that sedimentary rocks are found underneath datable volcanic rocks. What conclusion would you draw if you found a fossil bone, or a fossil ammonite, in sedimentary rocks ten metres below a volcanic lava flow that was dated at 65 million years old?
I'd start by asking myself if your dating is really accurate?
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/
"Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
- When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;512
- After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and
- The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in
Table 1.
16 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2)
million years for rocks which were
observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded “ages” of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave “ages” of millions of years. The low “age” samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real.
Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in
Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct “date”, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct “age” if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are
known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar “ages” are due to “excess” argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.
17 Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of “normal” 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics
18 and ancient crustal rocks.
19
The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the “clock” begins to “tick” the moment that the rock hardens. That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate.
However, it is well-known that if a radiometric “date” contradicts a fossil-derived (evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous. See
Lubenow, M.,
The Pigs Took It All,
Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995."
So your dating methods showed dates of millions of years for lava we know formed 25 to 50 years ago, because they fail to take into account the argon seeping into the lava from below as the older rock is turned into lava deep in the earth.
So if they can't even date lava flows only 25-50 years old correctly - what makes you think they got 15 million year old lava dated correctly? Besides your belief that you want it to be so?
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/
"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins."
Yes, they will discard their own claimed accurate dating methods when it comes to their beliefs in evolution. Whatever it takes to support the Fairie Dust.
