Yet fossil/strata dating is crucial to the evolutionary theory!Without it, the whole thing collapses) (1) None of the other dating methods (the twelve methods discussed in this present chapter) are reliable, but instead are in continual conflict with one another and with fossil/strata dating conclusions. In chapter 17 (Fossils and Strata) we shall discuss in detail the problems associated with fossil and strata dating, but let us right now put to rest a frequently-stated misconception: that radiodating methods have successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating system conjectures in the so-called "geologic column" of rock strata. ONLY THREE USABLE TEST RESULTS in reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating.(2) The 19th century dating theory was applied to the fossils and strata, so the evolutionists are required to bring all other long-ages dates into alignment with those theoretical dates. In fact, radiodating is so conflicting in its results, that, out of hundreds of thousands of tests, ONLY THREE test results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be used as "norms." Each of these, of course, could only apply to a single stratum:"An urgent task for geology is to determine, in years, the length of the eras, periods, and 'ages' and, eventually of the zones.
"*Arthur Holmes, in The Age of the Earth (1931), p.
431.(4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks by the rock strata they were in.
Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata!
In chapters 17 and 19, (Fossils and Strata, and Effects of the Flood) we will discuss the strata dating method in detail.
We will here discuss only its relationship to radioactive dating methods and learn that there are no relationships!
In the chapter on Fossils, we will discover that dating rocks by their fossils is based on circular reasoning:  Each strata is a certain age because of certain key fossils in it;  the fossils in the strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be that certain age, and also because they are in rock strata which is that same age.Thus, fossil-strata dating methods are hopelessly foundered.This statement is possibly surprising in view of the fact that almost any modern writer can produce a geologic timetable [based on evolutionary theory applied to "index fossils") that gives precise datings and lengths of the eras and systems and even of some of the smaller subdivisions . These figures have been obtained in various remarkable ways. ]"Ultimately, however, they are tied to three [radioactive] dates based on atomic disintegration: (1) 60 million years, the age of the pitchblende at Central City, Colorado; (2) 220 million years, the age of the pitchblende at St.Joachimstal, Bohemia; and (3) 440 million years, the age of the uranium-bearing shale at Gullhogen, Sweden.The age of the Swedish shale is the only one of these that is paleontologically controlled . All other absolute ages have been derived from the three radioactive tie points by interpolation based on thickness of strata or by 'reasoned guesses.' "*Adolph Knopf, "Measuring Geologic Time," in Scientific Monthly, November 1957, p. (Italics ours.)In other words, out of tens of thousands of tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough to rock strata age theories to be usable, and two of them are just interpolated guesses based on "strata thickness." Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil dating theory!"As long ago as 1936 the conclusion had been reached by Twenhofel [a leading authority on sedimentation] that estimates of time based on thicknesses of strata 'are hardly worth the paper they are written on,' and he presents detailed evidence in support of this revolutionary concept." "In attempting to build up a time scale, it is clear that we have to steer a difficult course through a maze of data of very variable quality, guided in some places by atomic weight evidence, in others by series of probabilities. only a few points can be fixed with precision into the [fossil-bearing] geological column, and the total assemblage of data is too confused.