Some misconceptions about the dating of rocks:
- Rocks are not dated by their appearance.
- Rocks are not dated by their petrologic character.
- Rocks are not dated by their mineralogical contents.
- Rocks are not dated by their structural features.
- Rocks are not dated by their adjacent rocks.
- Rocks are not dated by their vertical superposition.
- Rocks are not dated radiometrically.
- Rocks are not dated by any physical characteristics at all.
- Rocks are not dated by their total fossil contents.
How are rocks dated: INDEX FOSSILS!
“In each sedimentary stratum certain fossils seem to be characteristically abundant: these fossils are known as index fossils. If in a strange formation and index fossil is found, it is easy to date that particular layer of rock and to correlate it with other exposures in distant regions containing the same species.”
Index fossils are remains of organisms (usually marine invertebrates) that are assumed to have been of rather limited duration chronologically, but of essentially worldwide provenance geographically. Thus, their presence in a rock is believed to provide an unambiguous identification of its age.
But just how do geologists know which index fossils date which age? The answer to this question is evolution! That is, since evolution has taken place in the same direction all over the world, the stage of evolution attained by the organisms living in a given age should be an infallible criterion to identify sediments deposited in that age. Thus, rocks are dated by their fossil contents, especially their index fossils.
Paleontologists do not have divine revelation to justify their evolution model, however, so exactly what is the evidence that gives them such strong confidence in its validity? Let [Carl] Dunbar answer:
“Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”
Here is obviously a powerful system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used as the only key for placing rocks in chronological order. The criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology is the assumed evolutionary progression of life; the assumed evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed. The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!
David M Raupp, as Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum, as well as Head of Geology at the University of Chicago, is surely one of the world’s most knowledgeable paleontologists. He is also a proponent of neo-catastrophism and punctuated equilibrium, in common with an increasing number of modern evolutionists. One of the top men of the previous generation, a student of the eminent George Gaylord Simpson, has come to the same conclusion:
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.”
“The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with the evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.”
No wonder that the Oxford zoologist, Mark Ridley, has concluded that:
“No real evolutionist, whether gradualist of punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution over special creation.”
Therefore, the fossils really do not provide a satisfactory means for dating rocks and we have already seen that this method takes priority over all other methods. Consequently, there is certainly no real proof that the vast evolutionary time scale is valid at all.
That being true, there is no compelling reason why we should not seriously consider once again the possibilities in the relatively short time scale of the creation model.
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Creationism, 12th Ed., 1985.