I linked you to a compilation of dozens of separate radiometric studies done in the same broad area. These studies are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. You have a glance at it and call it "fluff." You are hilarious. The fact is that you simply will not allow yourself to accept anything other than what creationists tell you, regardless of its basis in reality. Go ahead and keep demonstrating this if you want, you're doing a marvellous job.

In the Flood thread I posted a Wikipedia article about how polystrate trees form. You should be happy; it tells you that the strata form relatively quickly.

Polystrate trees do not prove that all sedimentary layers form quickly. You have ignored this fact.

You claimed that a wide variety of index fossils has been found in layers around a polystrate tree but you cannot substantiate this with any evidence.

Your continual insistence that polystrate trees disprove the geologic column or the fossil record in any way is looking increasingly symptomatic of a refusal to believe that anyone feeding you these claims could possibly be wrong. This is called cognitive dissonance.

In order to put some weight behind your claims, you need to show that an absolute dating method is wrong. This is my third invitation, which will no doubt continue to be ignored.