I should probably clear some things up that you’re miscommunicating. A fossil is just “any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the earth’s crust since some past geologic or prehistoric time.”
No one, as Preston said, argues that fossils always take millions of years to form. That’s simply untrue and makes reason stare, considering that by convention scientists typically think of a fossil as any trace of life that is older than 10,000 years old (that’s right, 10,000, and not 10 million).
The field of taphonomy is concerned with the mechanisms and processes of fossilization, and there are many different ones (some of which may take longer than others depending on the environment). Scientists have long understood how to replicate the process of silicification, so I fail to understand the breakthrough UM feels that it has made on this issue.
Ultimately, you have not answered the meat of John Brown’s question, which is really questioning whether you get similar radiometric dating results as other fossils in nature. And, of course, you don’t.
You have not explained why radiometric dating and phylogeny correlate successively as you move up or down section through a rock unit.
Using radiometric tools and phylogeny, we can actually 1) predict what an organism might look like within a so-called “gap” in the fossil record, 2) go looking for and find that fossil.