I said the interpretation was dubious.
Yet you have continually failed to give an example to support your claim.
This link of yours said
By extrapolating the measured sediment accumulation rate of the Cretaceous portion of C29r (333 k.y.) through to the base of the Hell Creek, we estimate the Hell Creek Formation to be 1.36 m.y. in duration.
It also said:
The magnetic polarity sequence measured can be correlated with confidence to that part of the geomagnetic polarity time scale that ranges from polarity subchron C30n through C29n.
uses reversals of the earth's magnetic field to date rocks.
I am not so sloppy a reader as to think you've made a scratch on the piece Woodmorappe wrote. Perhaps you should take another look, and see what he actually said.
I've summarised his argument succinctly for you and told you why it's nonsense. If you want me to spell it out more obviously then I can.
Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions . . .
. . . nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period.
Here is the gist of his argument that in the locations where the geologic column is complete, the sedimentary layers "aren't thick enough." I have now explained the silliness of this premise six ways to Sunday.
even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical.
Which is also nonsense. He does not give a single specific example presumably because he knows that anyone could look up research on the area and find out that it has indeed been dated by a variety of means. Like I did.
You also seem to be ignoring what I've told you at least twice now -- that the relationships between layers in the geologic column were established long before Darwin. There was no reason for them to incorporate wishful thinking or any other such silliness into their research.
Thanks for linking to that, I'd forgotten about it. But I've been reading up on some of the issues discussed there and this has helped me understand them better. RAZD made quite an apt comment:
That you do not have the math or the science background to enable you to understand these things is not your fault, and lack of understanding thus is not "bad", but what I find disturbing is that you seem to prefer pretending not only to understand but that you have some knowledge and authority to comment instead of asking for clarification.
To add to that, you've linked to the thread here in an apparent attempt to show readers how cleverly you refuted the science there because you believe that's what you really did. In reality, what you did (as you are doing here and in the Flood thread) is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of maths, geology, physics, mineralogy, quantum physics, etc. I don't see much reason to continue these discussions if you are unwilling to learn some basic science.
