It can't float in mid-air, particularly if the material involved is sand, mud, or molten rock.
For example, the principle of superposition is based, fundamentally, on gravity.
In order for a layer of material to be deposited, something has to be beneath it to support it.
This document is partly based on a prior posting composed in reply to Ted Holden.
My thanks to both him and other critics for motivating me.
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.
The example used here contrasts sharply with the way conventional scientific dating methods are characterized by some critics (for example, refer to discussion in "Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods" in the Age of the Earth FAQ and Isochron Dating FAQ).
A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging.
However, note that because of the "principle of cross-cutting relationships", careful examination of the contact between the cave infill and the surrounding rock will reveal the true relative age relationships, as will the "principle of inclusion" if fragments of the surrounding rock are found within the infill.
Cave deposits also often have distinctive structures of their own (e.g., spelothems like stalactites and stalagmites), so it is not likely that someone could mistake them for a successional sequence of rock units. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics.
An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's .