Quotes On Fossil Record
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Charles Darwin "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" p. 275
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils." Biochemist D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4
"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics Respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian Chronology in Radio Carbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceeding of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970 p. 35
"Apart from very, 'modern' examples, which are really archeology, I can think of no cases of Radioactive Decay being used to date fossils." Derek V. Alger, "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Verses Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276, p. 47
"Paleontologist cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ... And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record." Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Verses Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276, p. 47
"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." Evolutionist Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19(3), 1981, pp. 9-29
"One part of a Dima (a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977) was 40,000 RCY (Radio carbon Years), another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." Walt Brown, In the beginning 2001, p. 176. Troy L.Pene, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglacid Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional paper 862 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office 1975) p. 30
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Antarctic Journal Vol. 6, Sept - Oct 1971, p. 211
Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. Science vol. 14, page 634-647, 1963. M. Keith and G. Anderson
Shell from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 244, 1963, p. 58-61
Site Design © RBT and Michael Yarnell | Creation Testifies! is a Ministry of Rogersville Baptist Temple. Content © 2011- Creation Testifies!