People keep saying fossils support the theory of Evolution. This is not the case, and is in fact open to some quite broad interpretations.
First: Radioactive dating "old" rocks... it's not entirely accurate (sometimes very badly off the mark).
Here's some bits out of an article I found:
Eleven sampels were collected from five recent lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe during field work in January 1996. The five lava flows: 2 each from flows on Feb 11 1949, June 4 1954, July 14 1954, and Feb 19 1975 avalanche deposits; 3 from Jenu 30 1954 flow.
All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava.
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Labs in Cambridge, Boston (A respected commercial lab) for potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, with no specific location or expceted age information supplied (samples were described as young with very little argon present - requiring extra care during analytical work).
The "ages" obtained from the K-Ar analyses ranged from <0.27 to 3.5 (+/- 0.2)
million years, for rocks which were
observed to have cooled from lava flows 25-50 years ago. (Whoops!)
The lab supervisor re-checked his equipment and re-ran the tests, producing similar (and wildy inaccurate) results. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analysed did not reproduce the same results (unsurprising due to the low levels of argon present in the rocks).
Some geochronologists would say that <0.27 million years is the correct 'date', but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct 'age' if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?
How can we trust the use of this 'dating' method on rocks whose ages we don't know? If this method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
Evolution 0, Creationism 1.