We can hardly suppose that there is some single mechanism which would interfere with all three of these very different processes in such a way as to leave the dates derived from them still concordant.
But it is equally far-fetched to imagine that three different mechanisms interfered with the three processes in such a way as to leave the dates concordant; that would require either a preposterous coincidence, or for natural processes to be actually conspiring to deceive us: an idea which is, if anything, even more preposterous. But in this case there is a perfectly reasonable and straightforward explanation for why the dates are concordant, namely that they are correct.
Throughout this process, they all go on showing exactly the same time.
There is no particular reason to suspect that this will turn out to be the case when it comes to the laws underlying absolute dating; nonetheless, an argument from principle alone can never be entirely convincing. You will recall from our discussion of sea floor spreading that the sea floor spreads out from mid-ocean rifts, and so ought to be younger nearer the rifts and progressively older further away from them.
What is more, we can measure the rate of spreading directly by GPS, SLR, and VLBI.
It has also been possible to test Ar-Ar dating against the historical record, since it is sufficiently sensitive to date rocks formed since the inception of the historical record.
For example, Ar-Ar dating has been used to give an accurate date for the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A. (See Lanphere et al., Ar ages of the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius, Italy, Bulletin of Volcanology, 69, 259–263.) Because varves contain organic material, it is possible to compare the dates from varves with the dates produced by radiocarbon dating, and see that they are in good agreement.
If there is one possible exception to this, it would be the deposition of marine sediment, since it is not subject to erosion, and since we would expect the rates of deposition of the various sediments to be, if not actually constant, then not subject to such a degree of variation as (for example) glacial till.
Based on the known rates of deposition, we may therefore at least say that the depths of marine sediment found on the sea floor are consistent with the ages of the igneous rocks beneath them as produced by radiometric dating.
One argument in favor of the absolute dating methods presented in the preceding articles is that they should work in principle.
If they don't, then it's not just a question of geologists being wrong about geology, but of physicists being wrong about physics and chemists being wrong about chemistry; if the geologists are wrong, entire laws of nature will have to be rewritten.
In Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, La-Be, La-Ce and K-Ca dating, we check that the points we plot on the isochron diagram lie on a straight line.
These precautions allow us to throw out most data that have been produced by confounding factors such as atmospheric contamination, weathering, hydrothermal events, metamorphism, metasomatism, etc.
Or is it more likely that they are synchronized because nothing that's happened to them has affected their working?