What it is is a misrepresentation. Old news.
What is, exactly? Why don't you prove you read at least part of the article and state your specific disagreement. Do you object to the definition of the geologic column, or . . . ?
But I did start to take a look. Ran smack into a bunch of "paleosol" hype & gave up. "Paleosols" are a pretty dubious interpretation
No, paleosols are quite real, as a quick Google will show you. Maybe you can explain why you think they are "hype."
Are you bluffing, or do you truly not know that there is no grand universal worldwide survey evodating all rocks everywhere using every method.
Apart from the obvious impossibility of dating every single rock layer across the entire earth, why do you think there's a need? I think maybe there's a misunderstanding here about the geologic column itself. If you look at the
geologic column are of the EvC forum, a perusal of the first few posts there will give an accessible outline of what the geologic column is and how fossils fit into it. More importantly for this discussion, perhaps, is information about how the relationships of strata across the world were established well before Darwin was born. Later more technologically-advanced dating methods corroborated these established relationships. The first geologists to study the geologic column had no knowledge of evolution and therefore it was impossible for them to have any desire to fiddle the figures in order to make things fit. They did their science based on what they observed.
If you truly do not understand how geologists recognise different rock layers, have a Google. The information would fill several books. Layers of questionable provenance are dated and the usual practice is to use more than one method in order to be precise. There are also well-studied groups of index fossils that can help, and I've linked to some other methods such as dating zircon. What would help this discussion is if you were able to cite a specific example that you believe proves your point about dates being wrong.
To address your comments about dates not correlating, or being forced somehow to do so, I suggest you read the first page or so of
Correlation among various radiometric ages on the EvC forum. As you know, there are scientists and other experts who talk there, and they present the information in small easy-to-read chunks (usually). There's a link there to one of RAZD's pages about the correlation of disparate dates using different methods on different substances around the world. Your task here, if you disbelieve such things, is to give evidence for why they are not so.
By the way, does your link address anything at all in the article we're discussing?
Well, I linked to two refutations of the article. I don't normally tell someone to go read a link and take the time themselves to refute the entire thing but that seems to be usual practice here. Both refutations explain how Woodmorappe's original premise is nonsense, and I will repeat the first quote I gave which sums it up nicely (bold emphasis mine):
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.
You have consistently failed to address this.
