Fossil record dating assumptions
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel... Those who believe in Evolution appear to be convinced that the fossils found in rock layers all over the earth are the definite proof that creatures have been evolving upward into higher life forms over hundreds of millions of years. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" Evolution for the most part is based on one's interpretation of sedimentary strata and the fossils found therein.
A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging.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.his document discusses the way radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are used to establish the conventional geological time scale.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).These two independent and agreeing dating methods for of the age of two primary members of the solar system formed a strong case for the correctness of his answer within the scientific community.
This just goes to show that just because independent estimates of age seem to agree with each other doesn't mean that they're correct - despite the fact that this particular argument is the very same one used to support the validity of radiometric dating today.
This of course gives the impression (especially with the commentary supplied) that things have been changing for the better over long periods of time, and that all creatures found in the fossil record are very old, outdated and extinct creatures that have long ago ceased to exist.
But, if we were to see the whole of the fossil record, and we were not influenced from years of evolutionary training in the science class, and bombarded with evolutionary biased programs, journals and magazines etc, and if we were to go out into the field and examine the evidence for ourselves, I think we would come up with a totally different conclusion.
"Survival of the Fittest" is the catch word to explain this alleged process throughout the ages and those creatures that could not adapt died out, producing no offspring and became extinct.
On the other hand, the "strong" kept getting stronger, producing new and improved offspring adapting to their environment by arbitrarily changing its own function and form over eons of time..
Evolutionists declare this process has been taking place through "natural selection" and "mutation", which leaves behind in its wake, the old models, so to say, which are replaced by higher forms of life.