I said there was a feature. Can you not read?
You said that the "feature" being fossilised soil is "disputed." I don't know of any geologists who dispute the existence of paleosols. If you have an example of something identified as a paleosol that you find doubtful, please cite it.
So you now sound like you want to claim the methods were used. What prevents you from presenting the dates you discovered?
OK . . . the Williston basin is large and underlies North Dakota and parts of other states and Canada; the places cited below are different part of it.
Hell Creek, paleomagnetism -- took 1.05-1.90 million years to form.
Williston basin in southeastern Montana, fission track and paleomagnetic dating -- reversed polarities yield dates of more than 700,000 years ago (the time of the most recent magnetic field reversal).
Fort Union formation, palynologic and radiometric dating confirm sequencing of strata in lower, middle and upper paleocene -- 65.5-55.8 million years ago.
Palynology uses fossil pollen, spores, microfossils, particulate organic matter and kerogen to date sedimentary rocks.
Sorry, can't find the U-Pb zircon article I'd read the other day.
I have spent a lot of time looking at websites for the Williston basin and it's obviously a well-studied area, partly because it has oil reserves. All of the data correlates with the geologic column as expected.
Now maybe you can give one single example of a place where you think the geologic column is out of order.
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?
This thread is about the geologic column. You can't discuss that without discussing how the layers are dated.
"Evodates" is your personal vague term. Maybe you can link me to where else in the forum you have given evidence about how the dates for the geologic column are wrong.
People can scroll up and see how you tried to pretend it was relevant.
Zircon U-Pb dating is as relevant as other dating methods when we are discussing the geologic column.
It's ad hoc bunkola.
It was evolutionists made up all this "one inch equals x million years" stuff in the first place.
Again --
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.
Woodmorappe is claiming that the geologic column is incomplete because there is no place on earth containing all of the thickest sedimentary deposits from all of the ages in the earth's history. The above quote compares this to snowfall. Because Antarctica receives so little snow, does that mean its snow cover is "incomplete" as opposed to that of Vail? You'll note that snow falls at different rates across the world. Similarly, sediment is deposited at different rates, and in some places there are stretches of time where it is not deposited at all (such as the present-day Canadian Shield).
If a geologist were looking at one inch of sediment from a recent flood, it's nonsense to suggest that they would say "an inch equals a million years."
That the Himalayas are building up? It's been measured by people and by satellites. You might as well ask me for evidence that the tide comes in.
Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
