Originally Posted by LindaLou
Quote
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.


Paleosol 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?
I said there was a feature. Can you not read?

Quote
Quote
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.


Dating methods

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.
So you now sound like you want to claim the methods were used. What prevents you from presenting the dates you discovered? Would that be too much like making an on-topic post? Is it against your principles or something?

Quote
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.
What I'm doing is sticking to the topic. You're the one cheerleading for evodates in general. I've done discussed evodates before. Where were you?

Quote
Quote
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.
You seem to be wishing it on-topic. Wishing won't make it so. People can scroll up and see how you tried to pretend it was relevant.

Quote
Quote
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.
I see you have no idea what constitutes a refutation.

Quote
Quote
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.
It's ad hoc bunkola. They can't honestly address his real-deal assessment of their nonsense, and they come up with cheap shots that actually target themselves.

It was evolutionists made up all this "one inch equals x million years" stuff in the first place. I guess you "conveniently" forget those facts when it suits you to do so, but do not assume the rest of us to be easily fooled. I hate to think I could fall for such lame nonsense if I tried my very best.

Now look at what these ninnies are claiming: everywhere else in the world, we have our evolutionist rates of "1 inch - x million years" working just fine. But wherever "the whole column is present", those places just happened to get super-duper ultra slow rates of deposition. Ever heard of special pleading? That's the problem with ad hoc nonsense. And the lovers of anything-but-the-truthism just gobble it up. It's candy to 'em.
Quote
Quote
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.
Evidence please. Me already no, but me sees how dish game work now, so me ask anyhows.

Quote
Quote
These aren't found where "needed".


Evidence please.

Quote
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.
I invite you to stop play-acting anytime. It's all just a junior high school popularity contest with you guys, ain't it? Just put on a show, and pretend as hard as you can. I'm a grown man. I live in a real world, okay? Pretend games are for CHILDREN. They're very unbecoming even for teenagers, I would add.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson