Since we seem to be pasting other people's posts with no obligation to comment on them ourselves, I will let the following response from a user of a different forum suffice as a response to the above. I, however, am happy to answer any questions about it and provide further information if requested to. Bold emphasis mine. Strange but true.

******

I've read and reread that article, and I am absolutely stupefied. I'm still not sure I've understood it correctly, because if I have, it's hard for me to believe that someone with anything more than a brainstem in their cranium could commit such an obviously moronic argument to print.

What Woodmorappe is saying is that the "complete geological column" does not exist anywhere on earth. How does he define the complete geologic column? Simple. The thickness of a given sedimentary layer will vary from location to location based on factors such as the initial degree of sedimentation, and subsequent processes such as erosion which act to reduce the thickness of the layer. However, for each layer there will be somewhere on earth where the thickness of that layer will be the greatest. It still may not be "complete", in that it will not contain sediments from every single day of the earth's existence since that layer was laid down. However, it will contain sediments from more days than any other site on earth.

So what would satisfy Woodmorappe's criteria for a complete column? A single area where the thickness of every single layer was the greatest of anywhere on earth. Now does it surprise you that this does not exist? It would be surprising, in fact absolutely shocking, if it did. To meet his criteria, the same particular area of earth would have to have conditions that favoured the development of thick rock layers, more than any other area of earth, for hundreds of millions of years! What are the odds of that happening? Close to non-existent. As Morton puts it in the article I linked:

Quote
The Antarctic region receives less than 1/10 of an inch of snow per year. Places in Colorado Ski country recieve up to 5-10 feet of snow per year and Houghton, Michigan receives up to 20 feet per year. Let us add up the maximum snow fall anywhere in the world each day of the year. Most likely we would tally up something like 200 feet of snow as the total maximum daily snow fall. If we then conclude that this means that Antarctica only gets 1/2000 of the yearly snow fall and therefore Antarctica doesn't represent a full year's snowfall, we would have done the same thing that Woodmorappe is doing with the geologic column. This is rather spurious to say the least. Antarctica received a full year's worth of snowfall--it is just a smaller amount than Vail, Colorado. Similarly to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Woodmorappe's argument doesn't stand up.



The article you linked is supposedly a response to Morton's. You reread it and tell us if you think it addresses the above refutation in any way. Again, it absolutely astounds me that so many words could have been wasted making an argument that is so obviously false. But I think the wordiness is part of the strategy. I bet you not one person who finds that article persuasive could actually explain its argument in their own words. They just know it's written by someone who seems to be some sort of scientist, it contains a lot of big words and fancy diagrams, and the author concludes that geological evidence supports the existence of a Global Flood. For them, that's enough to support their belief that there is scientific evidence of the Flood.

The only question in my mind is whether Woodmorappe and his like are deluding themselves, or if they are just common hucksters.