Scientists are trained to use fossils and the rock layers they are found in to determine the age of those fossils and layers.  A particular fossil might be "known" to belong to a certain geologic age so the layer of rock it was found in would be assigned a corresponding age.  Similarly, a certain rock layer in some area may be "known" to have been formed during a certain geologic age, thus it could be used to so date fossils discovered within it.  Sound confusing?  That's because it is; such an approach is called circular reasoning and it does not qualify as science.

Another problem with fossils is the assumption that each rock layer represents many, many thousands of years.  But then what about transverse fossils?  These fossils are found actually embedded across two or more rock layers.  Imagine that, a once living thing was somehow preserved for perhaps a hundred thousand years, intact enough to continue the fossilization process as each succeeding rock layer was formed over that incredible length of time!  In contrast to this strained interpretation, data gathered after Mount St. Helens erupted shows that rock layers can form much more quickly.  That evidence along with a more open minded treatment of transverse fossils suggests that the earth may not be so old after all.

Then there is the test of predictability.  If evolution is the mechanism responsible for the development of life on earth, then it should follow that over the last 150 years, as scientists have steadily mined the fossil record, that many intermediate forms would emerge.  That has not happened, instead the fossils testify to a remarkable faithfulness to the concept of minor variations within kinds that remain as they began.  Though some fossils have been found that were claimed to be "missing links" not one is conclusive and many have been discredited upon closer scrutiny.  The history of such fossils is also sprinkled with a few hoaxes too.

The bottom line is that Darwin's prediction has gone not only unfulfilled but his entire theory has suffered some extreme contortions in an attempt to conform to what the fossil record reveals.  Still, an old earth must be true if evolution is to maintain its standing.  So for many scientists the facts don't count.   Since they begin with the presupposition that there is no God, there just can't be One for them.  The tragedy is that this flimsy philosophical imperative, which certainly is not science, has been taught as fact to every publicly educated child for several decades now.  What are the old earth evolutionists so afraid of that they will not permit calm discussion of both models of origins in school?  Certainly it takes a great deal of faith to believe evolutionism in the face of just the fossil record, not to mention the mountain of evidence from other areas of genuine scientific study.