Quote
-- 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 His fossils were charted to show how "out of date" they are, and they are overwhelmingly "out" by one age, no more.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?
Your source does not say there are no "tertiary" layers. He says there is "no tertiary marine layer". Small wonder you'd like to dismiss those fossils altogether.

Quote
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.
"Real" scientists? Defined as "those who disagree with him" I guess. Or maybe "those who employ straw men to refute claims not made"?

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,"
Does any scientific flood model require this mixing? I doubt it. I doubt it most extremely. Most flood models I've seen allow for rapid burial of things in whatever place they happened to be. Is there evidence Woodmorappe has proposed a model which does not allow for this? I've observed that evolutionists always employ this very same type of straw man, religiously.

Quote
why Tertiary turtles are stratigraphically above dinosaur fossils, and why dinosaurs are directly above Cambrian trilobites in the Williston Basin and elsewhere.
Has Woodmorappe promised to address these things directly & in a manner which will satisfy every evolutionist in the world?
Quote
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
Great! Woodmorappe lists it as an index fossil (implies there's a list, doesn't it?), and it turns out it is an index fossil! (A good list should include it, right?) If it's so poor, I expect the obfuscation-prone evolutionists must love it.

Quote
You need to find another source; Woodmorappe is scientifically unreliable. Why not study some real science, for example?

But if Woodmorappe's list (the one we're discussing) is faulty, why can nobody find the actual faults? Were he half as sloppy as the slanderers claim, it shouldn't be very hard at all.

The argument that "most of them are only out-of-place by one layer" looks like it admits they are indeed out-of-place vs. your fantasy.

Quote
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.
I didn't say he must be a mole. I allowed that there's a chance he isn't.

Quote
Please explain why trilobites are at the bottom of the fossil record, dinosaurs above them, hominids above them, and no mixing. Still no answers?
Not yet. You have plenty of answers overdue, and I prefer not to divert the discussion.

You have not yet defined "in situ"; you have not yet disposed of the 236 fossils; you have not clearly defined the "pattern" you claim you see in the fossil record (which may or may not be present in 95%+ of the fossils). Neither have you provided any reason one should accept the circular reasoning involved: Darwin saw the record, he explained the record, and the record itself is the evidence that his explanation is correct.

So it's not surprising you'd like to change the subject.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson