Dating of fossils and rocks
This was, of course, based in part on Biblical authority, but it was also backed up by good science.
After all, young earth Biblical Scientific Creationists had been around since Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
Obviously, if you derive a date using techniques that start with five or seven false assumptions, your determined age will be false. The layers of sedimentary rock that do exist in the ground are not found in the youngest to oldest order that they are shown in secular science textbooks. They determine the age of the rock layers by the fossils that they contain, and then they turn around and determine the ages assigned to the fossils by the ages of the rock layers that they were found in.
Nowhere does such a column of layers exist except in the textbook. If no such column exists, and no modern technology works to yield reliable ages for the sedimentary rock layers found in the ground, how do evolutionists determine the supposed ages that they so delightfully publish for consumption by a gullible public? The fossils that are used to determine the age of the rock layers are called Index or Key fossils.
for James Hutton to come along in 1795 and claim that the earth was not 70,000 years old; it was millions and millions of years old.
In 1850, two evolutionists wrote that the earth was 25 and 100 million years old.
Niles Eldredge, Curator, Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, since 1969, has written that the fossils cannot be used to date the rocks that they are found in.
The early modern day evolutionists probably started with Charles De Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755).
He wrote about there only being a few kinds of creatures to start with and that these multiplied into many kinds over time.
One reason for this is that we now know that all animal and plant kinds are found all the way back to the beginning of Cambrian layers.
Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process.Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption.