Quote
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.

The fossils in question are forams, which are creatures that live in water, the vast majority living in salt water. The geologist was pointing out that there are no Tertiary marine layers in that area of Utah where Woodmorappe's foram fossils came from, so what is this Tertiary layer he mentions?

I'm getting tired of splitting hairs over this. You do realise that if a scientific paper was presented to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and contained the kinds of errors that Woodmorappe has made, it would be thrown out? You also realise, of course, that the things I've told you and the information in the links I've given you are enough to cast some considerable doubt, and to shift the burden of proof onto Woodmorappe, who needs to show that his fossils are bona fide anomalies? Saying that there is reason to infer that many of these fossils are reworked is not wishful thinking, it's applying the scientific method. How silly would it be to declare the theory of evolution to be erroneous because of some reworked pollen fossils that someone had found? It would be like saying that I know for a fact that the sun revolves around the earth because I see with my own eyes that the sun sets in the west and rises in the east every day, and I'm going to ignore all the lies, circular reasoning, and wishful thinking that scientists employ to fool me into thinking otherwise.

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.

Are you now claiming that floods don't mix things together? So how did little critters like trilobites all end up in layers at the bottom, with every single one of those massive dinosaurs above them?

We're starting to get into talking about a global flood here and I'd rather not muddy the waters by losing our focus on the sorting of the fossil record. If you'd like to start a new thread about the flood, I'd be quite interested in joining the discussion there.

Quote
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.

You appear not to have tried to discover what he's actually saying here. If you look at this site, you will see that the Ordovician age was after the Cambrian, and that there were several more ages before the Mississippian. The span of time during which this foram lived encompasses much more time than the Ordovician -- therefore it is a poor index fossil for the Ordovician. Jeez, do you ever look information up and try to learn about it before you declare it to be nonsense?

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.

So no, you have no answer. At least you're being honest.

In answer to your other questions, in situ means in its original place.

Quote
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).

The sorting is present in the entire fossil record, all over the world, including marine invertebrates (which I assume is where you're getting your 95% figure). This was documented by creationist geologists before Darwin was even born. You've admitted yourself that you cannot explain why trilobites are at the bottom, dinosaurs above them, and hominids above them -- no mixing of these, ever, anywhere. I haven't seen a single creationist argument that can do anything other than claim this is somehow a lie or a hoax, have you?