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.
What it is is a misrepresentation. Old news.
But I did start to take a look. Ran smack into a bunch of "paleosol" hype & gave up. "Paleosols" are a pretty dubious interpretation even by evolutionist standards. Not the kind of thing one makes a conclusive case out of.
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.
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.
Are you bluffing, or do you truly not know that there is no grand universal worldwide survey evodating all rocks everywhere using every method.
There are lots and lots of places and layers that have never been dated. When a fossil is found, why do you think they try to date the location? If it's already been done and rechecked by the grand universal worldwide survey, dating it over again is just a waste of time and a whole lot of money. Most of the time, they run the tests because no test has been done before at that location.
The primary method used to this day is still to date the rocks by fossil content. You can't even name a layer any other way, and expect it to stick. If a layer contains "Triassic" fossils, that's the label it gets, and it matters not what any other method says.
You list a couple of evodating methods, and expect folks to just assume they've been used on the locations in question? And further assume they got the "right" dates on every one of the "layers"? No dice, at least with me.
Now if you have a source that conducted surveys in these areas, using the methods you advocate, let's see it.
(And different methods are used in different places; that's one of the first things one learns about evodates. If one studies the topic.)
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.
Real science employs
blind testing. Labs are not informed what outcome is desired. Evodating can't do that, can they? I really wish they would - now that'd make for some funny readin'.
I think it'd be a lot harder to explain if the results
didn't match, when the labs are told in advance what's expected. Something tells me labs that prove "incompetent" at meeting expectations would see business going to the competition.
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.
I've backed up plenty. This is not a good time for you to talk, bringing in generic evodate propaganda when the question of dating specific locations is being discussed. We have a thread or two around here on evodates. Do you need a link?
By the way, does your link address anything at all in the article we're discussing? I don't plan to waste my time if it's what it appears to be: run-of-the-mill badmouthing.
