Mike, a typical biology student, is working on his biology homework when he comes across a section in his book talking about evolution. Mike is confused, but soon whole-heartedly grasps the idea, seeing no opposition to the evolutionary theory in his book. Sadly, this is the situation throughout America, where millions of kids are being indoctrinated every day with the evolutionary theory. While the theory of evolution has many shortcomings and falsities, there are two main points that stand out against it: the lack of evolutionary fossils, and the inaccuracy of the dating methods. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show countless transitional fossils, but even after140 years and great technological advances, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.
According to New Scientist Magazine, "the entire collection of ape-man bones in the world could fit on a pool table." The famous Java man, considered for years to be a perfect example of a transition between humans and monkeys, consisted of only a skull cap and a leg bone.
Later research on the skull cap and leg bone showed that the cap was distinctly ape-like, and the leg unmistakably human. The Java man's discoverer, Eugene Dubois, later admitted that the skull cap itself was found 46 feet away from the leg. The Nebraska man, used in the Scopes monkey trial, was reconstructed from a single tooth - later revealed to be from an extinct pig. The Piltdown man, used for forty years as proof of evolution, was actually a fraud, consisting of altered human and orangutan bones. More recently, the Archaeopteryx was found, and promoted to be the missing link between birds and dinosaurs because of its' having teeth, wing claws, and feathers. In reality, several modern-day birds have such teeth (the Hoatzin) and claws, like the Ostrich. Upon further examination, the wings of the Archaeopteryx were found to be fully developed and functional, and the bones were hollow - just as on all other birds. The feathers on the Archaeopteryx only solidify the idea that it is a bird, and nothing more.
According to Dr. John Sarfati, "[Archaeopteryx] fossil specimens are, however, genuine - unlike the more recent and proven fraud Archaeoraptor, featured in Time magazine, where portions of different fossils were glued together to make a 'bird-dinosaur missing link.' " If evolution is true, then why don't we have millions of solid transitional fossils, instead of these disputable "links"? Now, if evolutionists believe these fossils to be true, just how exactly do they label them as "100 million years old" or "three billion years old"? The answer - the dating methods.
You have probably heard about some of the dating methods, like carbon-14, but these dating methods themselves are gravely inaccurate, and yet are presented as infallible evolutionary fact. While there are many that can be used, there are two primary methods generally accepted by scientists: radiometric, and radiocarbon dating. Radiometric dating relys on the decay processes of certain elements, like how uranium changes into lead over a very long period of time. These methods make three critical assumptions: none of the original element was present to the start of the process, the element's decay rate has always been the same, and there were no changes in the surrounding earth layers during the fossil's "life". For example, when certain Hawaiian lava flows were tested by the potassium-argon test, the forthcoming age was 160 million to three billion years. Not only is this an enormous gap, it is quite inaccurate, as the lava flows had erupted only two hundred years ago! There are many such examples. In one of Canada's forests, a power line fell and heated up the surrounding ground to a literal boiling point, fossilizing all nearby tree roots instantly. Later, the roots were taken to a Canadian university for testing. The scientists there refused to test the roots, stating the such a test would give millions of years and therefore be pointless, as heat was part of the petrification process. Importantly, almost every fossil known was found as a result of volcanic eruption. If any kind of heat renders these tests meaningless, then how can tests on volcanic ash give conclusive evidence? This renders the radiometric dating methods extremely unreliable for much of paleontology, and they should not therefore be relied on as absolute fact. The other and most famous method is radiocarbon, or Carbon-14 dating. This radioactive carbon isotope is generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, slowly absorbed into living things' systems as their lives press on. This process stops the second the organism dies, and the radiocarbon starts decaying into regular carbon. By measuring the amounts of normal and radioactive carbon in a sample and assuming several things along the way, we can find out when the organism died. According to Dennis Petersen, a scientist renowned for his work in the dating methods, the Carbon-14 dating method depends on an unchanging rate of radiation, reception, and formation for the last years. For example, if you came upon a lit candle in a room, could you tell someone how long it had been burning? You could probably find some kind of formula to determine how long the wax took to drip, but what if someone had opened a window, therefore allowing more oxygen into the room? What about the room temperature, or if someone put out the candle and then later relit it? Many conditions could've affected the flame, and you have no clue as to how long it has been burning. This is precisely like carbon-14 dating, and just as many events can affect it, like solar flares, which greatly alter the amount of carbon-14 generation, or meteors and asteroid landings, which can totally change the results of a carbon-14 test. There are many such examples of these faults. Living plants growing by a spring were dated at 17,300 years old, fresh seal skins were dated at 2,300 years old, and live clams were dated at 1,300 years old. Obviously, there is a major problem with this method: circumstances. Just as with the radiometric dating methods, if any change in the process or major or minor catastrophic events occurred, the Carbon-14 dating method would be completely thrown off. Would you take data like this, make it a pillar of your theory, and teach it as undeniable fact to millions people? Evolution is not only lacking in vital transitory fossils and a reliable dating method; there are many other topics as well, such as astronomy or irreducible complexity. Perhaps if Mike, the biology student, would have been able to read about the holes in evolution, he would've reconsidered his viewpoints regarding the origin of species. Perhaps if the general public was merely informed of the gaping holes and misleadings in evolution, they would think twice before accepting it as a world view. Hopefully, with time, patience, and better public education, the people of America will see evolution for what it is: a hole.