1. Biblical chronology indicates that the earth is a few thousand years old. For a relatively short discussion of Biblical chronology, see the paper "Biblical Chronology" by J.F. Henry (Chattanooga, TN, Center for Creation Concepts, 1985). For a thorough scholarly exposition, see The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele (University of Chicago Press, 1951). A shorter version of Thiele's chronology was later published as Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), and the book itself has been published in a revised edition (Zondervan, 1982). Thiele's chronology has become the standard among those who read the Bible as serious history.
2. Many of these old articles are cited in Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts by William R. Corliss (Glen Arm, MD, The Sourcebook Project, 1978). See also the paper "Fossils and the Flood" by J.F. Henry (Chattanooga, TN, Center for Creation Concepts, 1984).
3. Various evolutionists have commented on this point:
"I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840." -- "Mountain-Building and the Nature of the Geologic Time-Scale" by Edmund M. Speiker (Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Volume 40, August 1956), page 1803.
"By the years 1830-1833, when the three volumes of Charles Lyell's great classic Principles of Geology were published, the system of sequential or relative dating was well established." -- Fossils and the History of Life by George Gaylord Simpson (New York, Scientific American Library, 1983), page 58.
"The basic time scale has remained unchanged since 1879 . . ." -- "A New Shirt for Carl" by Stephen Rowland (Science 83, Volume 4, May 1983), page 80.
Obviously, the evolutionary time scale reflects only the consensus of the most vocal and articulate personalities, not scientific fact: "Clearly, the time scale was not conceived as a coherent whole but rather evolved . . ." -- Contemporary Physical Geology by Harold L. Levin (Philadelphia, Saunders College Publishing, 1986), page 187.
The independence of the evolutionary timescale from actual dating procedures is further discussed in the paper "Radiometric Dating" by J.F. Henry (Chattanooga, TN, Center for Creation Concepts, 1984).
4. Some cases are documented in The Answers Book by Ken Ham and others (El Cajon, CA, Master Books, 1991), pages 73-75. Many other cases are documented in "Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils" by Robert Garbe and others (Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Science Conference, Minneapolis, 1992), pages 9-10.
5. See the sources cited in the preceding note.
6. "The sedimentary rocks that contain the record of life rarely contain radioactive materials suitable for dating." -- Paleontology by Colin W. Stearn and Robert L. Carroll (New York, Wiley, 1989), page 16.
"Many sedimentary rocks cannot [be dated], and with few exceptions fossils are found in [them]." -- Simpson, cited in Note 3 above, page 68.
"In contrast to igneous rocks, the minerals of sediments can be weathered and leached of radioactive components. . . . In addition, the age of a detrital grain in a sedimentary rock does not give an age of the sedimentary rock but only of the parent rock that was eroded much earlier." -- Physical Geology by Harold L. Levin (Philadelphia, Saunders, 1986), page 190.
7. The use of complicating concepts such as "isochrons" does not change this conclusion. See the paper "Radiometric Dating" referenced in Note 3 above.
8. "As much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching. . . . As much as 40 percent of the uranium in most fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable." -- "Notes on the Geology of Uranium" by M.R. Klepper and D.G. Wyant (U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1046-F, 1957), page 93. See Critique of Radiometric Dating by Harold S. Slusher (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1981), for additional information on the solubility of radioactive compounds in water.
9. In "Windows to the Earth" by William J. Cromie (Mosaic, Spring 1981), pages 29-30, it is stated: "[The Soviets] found open fractures with fluids flowing through them at depths down to at least 11.5 kilometers. Many scientists expected that pressure would close all open space below three kilometers." More recently, German scientists drilling a deep hole in their country have found crevices and pores at almost all depths down to 7.5 kilometers, even though theory said they could not exist because of intense pressures. And these voids were filled with circulating fluids. See "Looking - Deeply - into the Earth's Crust in Europe" by Richard A. Kerr (Science, Volume 261, 1993), page 295.
10. For a technical critique of the assumptions employed in radiometric dating, see Critique of Radiometric Dating by Harold S. Slusher, cited in Note 8 above. See also the paper "Radiometric Dating" referenced in Note 3 above.
11. The classic treatise on radiohalos is Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry (Knoxville, TN, Earth Science Associates, 1986).
12. A number of evolutionists have acknowledged the circularity in "dating" sedimentary rocks, as the following statements reveal:
"Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms that they contain." -- "Geology" by R.H. Rastall, article in Encyclopedia Britannica (Volume 10, 1956), page 168.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity." -- "Geology and Creationism" by David M. Raup (Field Museum Natural History Bulletin, Volume 54, March 1983), page 21.
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory." -- "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" by Tom Kemp (New Scientist, Volume 108, December 5, 1985), page 66.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that Evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by Evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" -- "Biologists, Help!" by Larry Azar (Bioscience, Volume 28, November 1978), page 714.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks." -- "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy" by J.E. O'Rourke (American Journal of Science, Volume 276, January 1976), page 48.
Unfortunately, virtually all the experts just cited excuse their circular "dating" with the response, "How else are you going to do it?" In fact, this was exactly the reaction of Dr. Donald Fisher, State Paleontologist of New York, in a 1979 interview with Dr. Luther Sunderland. See "The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It" by Luther D. Sunderland (Bible-Science Newsletter, Volume 24, December 1986), page 6.
13. This classic research is described in "Time, Life and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates" by Robert L. Whitelaw (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Volume 7, June 1970), page 56. In more recent years, Whitelaw has incorporated new carbon-14 data into his research. His updates have been published in subsequent issues of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Unfortunately, the usual (evolutionistic) journals have not been interested in publishing his results.