"Over the past 140 years, geologists have successfully reconstructed the history of the earth's crust, and have dated the various rock layers of which the geologic column is composed. It is plain to see that if a fossil is found above a 420-million-year-old layer and below a 418-million-year-old layer, then the animal that produced the fossil must have lived between 418 and 420 million years ago."
-- James Wilkins, "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology," 3d ed., 1999, p.xxii
"Evolutionary research--and most notably, since the 1960s, genetic comparisons--has enabled biologists to reconstruct most of the history of life on this planet. This is fundamental to us, since it allows us to date geologic layers. Thus, if a rock contains a so-called index fossil such as Metrarabdotos chipolanum, then the rock must be between 12 and 13 million years old, since the species first appeared 13 million years ago and went extinct 12 million years ago."
-- Janet Schwartz, "Principles of Geology," 2000, p. 101.
These two quotations together are revealing: the biologists base their conclusions on what they think the geologists have figured out, and vice-versa. Each group thinks the other group has the answers.
In addition, note that Wilkins's figure of 140 years coincides with the publication of Darwin's `Origin of Species' in 1859.
"The aa flow [from the eruption of Hawaii's Mt. Kilaueia in 1807] was dated with no fewer than sixty isochrons, using a variety of techniques, for a total of over 300 samples. [...] Fully half of the isochrons had to be discarded because they had a negative slope. Other isochrons exhibited other problems [...] The remainder were fully in line with historic observation. This is consistent with the results obtained at Hvolsvöllur [in Iceland]."
-- Thorsten Freyson, "Proceedings of the XX Conference on Comparative Volcanic Stratigraphy," Reykjavik, 1988.
An isochron is a dating technique that produces a straight line on a graph. The slope of the line gives the age of the rock. A negative slope is meaningless, since it would indicate a rock that hasn't formed yet!
If you were to draw straight lines at random, about half of them to have a negative slope (going from the top left to the bottom right, instead of from the bottom left to the top right). So if half of the isochrons Freyson's team got were negative, that means that the results of isochron measurement is no better than random chance. The rest of this passage shows how he threw out the results that didn't conform to his preconceived notions of how old the lava "should" be.
"The widely-reported figure of 98% genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans is misleading, since it refers only to the coding sequences: the parts of the DNA that actually get turned into protein.
When one looks at non-coding sequences (so-called "junk" DNA), a different picture emerges: human junk DNA is no more similar to chimpanzee junk DNA than it is to pig, dog, yeast, or oak DNA."
-- John Stebbins, University of Wisconsin Dept. of Life Sciences Technical Report TR-01-2263A, 2001.
When a cell divides, it copies both coding and non-coding DNA the same way: your cells contain copies of your parents' non-coding DNA. So if evolution were true, we would expect monkeys and humans to have similar "junk" DNA.
What this passage shows, though, is that only the functional parts of the DNA are similar. This is not surprising, since both chimpanzees and humans have lungs, liver, bones, etc. If you had manuals for building a lawn mower and a truck, you would also notice that they both have instructions for building a carburetor, wheels, ignition, etc. But this does not mean that trucks evolved from lawn mowers.
"The eye of Puteulanus norvegianus [a species of Caribbean parrot, so called because the first specimens were brought to Europe by Scandinavian sailors] is an oddity, in that it is both genetically and structurally more similar to that of Ephemeris washingtonia [a species of squirrel from the American northwest] than it is to other species of Puteulanus.
"Since both are tree-dwelling species, the conventional explanation is [...] convergent evolution."
-- Samuel R. Delany, "On the Distribution of Type A and Type C Arboreals in North America," J. Mol. Ecol. VI(9), 2002.
[This is a wonderful example of "lateral gene transfer," in which two unrelated species share common genes, but not through common descent. Evolutionists claim that this should happen only in a few instances under specific circumstances, such as a retrovirus inserting its RNA into two different species. But that's not the case here.]
"Exercise 2-12: The protein haemoglobin consists of 308 amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acids. Assuming that amino acids follow a flat distribution in an infinite pool, calculate the probability of choosing the correct ingredients for haemoglobin.
"Exercise 2-13: Using the result from 2-12, calculate the probability of choosing, in order, the correct amino acids to form a haemoglobin molecule."
-- Philip Burke, ORC, "Introduction to Probability and Statistics," Edinburgh University Press, 1984.
The answer to the second exercise is given as 52148120994162843808472209623280080922917590877847968016285195503472161273941419678294972825600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1 against.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Theory of Evolution. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
-- Austin Institute of Genetics Guidelines for Editorial Reviewers
In other words, they've already decided what the "truth" is. This paragraph says that they will ignore any evidence against evolution, no matter how compelling, on purely ideological grounds.