Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating.
These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views.
All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record.
Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.
In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.
The best explanation for slow-cooling granite and quick-forming radiohalos is accelerated decay.
Billions of years’ worth of uranium decay (at today’s rates) must have occurred within polonium’s lifetime of hundreds of days.
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution.
These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough.
Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life.
Trapped helium and short-lived polonium radiohalos present in granite suggest that radiodecay rates were once much higher than they are today.
Plus, significantly older radiodates for rocks of a known age show that radiometric dating is not reliable.Although these particular isotopes are not used to date rocks, they illustrate that radioisotope decay (radiodecay) is not always constant.