Here is an article which rebuts Woodmorappe's claims in more detail. I recommend a read of the information about the geologic column -- what it is, and how creationists tend to misrepresent it.

Quote
Oh my! We all so dumb & uninformbud we hadn't done none of us heard of no such evodate stuffs before. [etc]


These links are from articles in scientific journals describing particular ways of obtaining precise dates for sedimentary rocks. I also cited the method of dating igneous rocks above and below sedimentary layers. Maybe you can attempt to make some kind of intelligible point about this which includes evidence on your part.

Quote
You must've missed the point that we're talking about the places that allegedly contain the "entire geological column"


I'm not sure why you seem to think that the methods for dating the geologic column in one area should be any different than those used for dating it in another. The methods have been cited and if you want to question them you need to present your evidence here.

Quote
One should also appreciate what an expensive undertaking it can be, when test after test after test must be run until the desired result is achieved.


This is how science is done -- by testing. I cited some abstracts for Russ where four or more different dating methods correlated to give a precise geological age.

We have been debating for quite some time now and I habitually have to ask you to back your comments up with evidence, which you rarely do. You must realise that jeering, which is just about all your previous post consists of, doesn't make a good case for you.