There is a feature found in the rocks. That this feature is the result of soil becoming fossilized is not a clear conclusion; it is disputed, dismissed, or ignored altogether even by many, perhaps most, evolutionist geologists.
formation is a geological process, just like erosion or uplift. Do you have a specific example to cite or are you just wishing this formation out of existence?
You claim that the evodate methods in your links are relevant & you claim the same methods are used everywhere.
Either those methods have been used in the locations under discussion in this thread, or they're irrelevant. I'd ask "which is it?", but by now the answer's too all-fired obvious.
Look up any rock formation and you can find scientific papers about how it's been dated. I looked up information about the Williston Basin, which is the area in North Dakota where the geologic column is complete. As you'd expect, there are radiometric dates of igneous deposits, index fossils and zircon analysis of sediment -- that's just a quick Google and there are probably more. For any sedimentary rock deposit you would also apply
relative dating principles. You will recall what I said about geologists long before Darwin's birth observing these relationships in rocks around the world, and subsequent absolute dating methods confirming them. It would therefore have been impossible for them to have any desire to fiddle the figures in order to support evolutionary theory, as creationists often claim scientists do.
You seem to be dancing around this topic rather regularly without citing any examples where you think the geologic column is out of order or the dating methods are incorrect. What you seem to be presenting is an argument from incredulity, which will not stand up very well against scientific data.
If you think zircon evodates are the ultimate, why not start a thread about zircon evodates?
I cited it as an absolute (as opposed to relative) dating method for sedimentary rock. You seem to be wishing it out of existence like the paleosols and more or less everything else you've been talking about.
What? Can't you type enough propaganda yourself? I've seen the quality of their product before; it didn't impress me much.
It's just that the one page I asked you to read gives quite a lot of data which refutes your comments about dating methods not correlating. If you don't want to look at my links that's your choice but so far you have given zero evidence for your own ideas.
Consistently? How consistently? And why should I address what's already covered?
Because you haven't addressed it at all and it's only been covered by me. For the third time (at least), to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Remember the analogy of uneven snowfall in different regions. This is the heart of Woodmorappe's argument, it's nonsense, and you seem to be unwilling or unable to try to show otherwise.
Present-day erosion rates would leave us with no "column" to speak of at all.
You seem to be forgetting that new land forms in rift zones and that as mountains erode, new ones are formed when plates collide. The Himalayas are currently still rising at measurable rates each year.
These aren't found where "needed".
Evidence please.
Now anytime deposition rates are said to decrease, people, please remember the implications for polystrate fossils.
Am I right in understanding from this that you think rates of deposition are the same across the earth? Sounds like Woodmorappe again. Yes, scientists understand that
polystrate fossil formation includes rapid deposition, though in many cases the formation is more complex than that. And no, this does not mean that this rate of deposition is constant across the earth.
I invite you to crack open a basic geology book or do some internet research CTD. You will then be able to look at the arguments of people like Woodmorappe with an educated eye.
