-- yawn -- more arguments from disbelief. Note that the Glen Morton site I linked you to was giving information about fossils. It was not his own refutation of Woodmorappe's data. The two sites I linked you to were written by a geologist and a paleontologist who looked carefully at the information Woodmorappe presented. His fossils were charted to show how "out of date" they are, and they are overwhelmingly "out" by one age, no more. There were discussions of what should and should not be found in certain places, such as the Utah rock formation. If there is no Tertiary layer in that particular area, then why has Woodmorappe presented a fossil from that area in a Tertiary layer?

Really, it isn't hard to find responses from real scientists who can easily spot Woodmorappe's errors. Here is a review of Woodmorappe's book. This person (a geologist) has checked Woodmorappe's references, which the links I gave you had not done. He says,

Quote
I've checked hundreds of Woodmorappe's references and quickly discovered that he routinely misuses and selectively ignores the literature. For example, Woodmorappe couldn't even list the proper ages of many of the "index" fossils in Table 2 (p. 28-29). Specifically, in his original 1983 article, Woodmorappe (p. 138) listed Monograptus as an "Ordovician" graptolite (#5). However, the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (which is considered one of the best, if not the best, sources of information on invertebrate fossils) and other references say it's Silurian. I documented this error along with about 15 pages of more serious mistakes from this one article. Several years ago, Woodmorappe received a copy of my critique through email.
Now, the "Foreword" (p. 1) claims that "no changes" were made in the original papers in this volume. However, in the 1999 edition, Monograptus has been erased from #5 in Table 2 (p. 28-29), but it is clear that NO effort has been made to correct the consequences of this mistake in Map 5 (p. 31), Table 3 (p. 42-43) and other figures that use the disinformation in Table 2. In another example, Woodmorappe lists the genus Dictyonema in Table 2 (p. 28-29) as being an "Ordovician" index fossil. In reality, without citing the species, Dictyonema is a poor index fossil, because it lived from the Cambrian to the Mississippian. Because of the widespread sloppiness and errors in Table 2, Woodmorappe's subsequent arguments are utterly flawed and untrustworthy.

After analysing several specific examples of more errors and spurious claims, this review concludes:

Quote
Woodmorappe's arguments (including Table 3, p. 42-43) totally fail to explain why Cambrian trilobites and Cretaceous ammonoids from western North Dakota were not mixed during "Noah's Flood," why Tertiary turtles are stratigraphically above dinosaur fossils, and why dinosaurs are directly above Cambrian trilobites in the Williston Basin and elsewhere. Whether it deals with Z-shaped coal seams, "microevolution," or radiometric dating, "Studies in Flood Geology" is a classic pseudoscientific fantasy and an utter geologic failure.

You need to find another source; Woodmorappe is scientifically unreliable. Why not study some real science, for example? Why does Glen Morton have to be a "mole" just because he accepted that the data he was seeing daily -- which he otherwise would have avoided -- showed proof of evolution and an old earth? He never lost his faith; he was able to reconcile it with the real world.

Please explain why trilobites are at the bottom of the fossil record, dinosaurs above them, hominids above them, and no mixing. Still no answers?