Quote
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?
Oh, I get it now. Your mind cannot conceive the possibility that a marine fossil might be found in a non-marine "layer". For all the imagination you show in explaining things away, and all your capacity to accept the wildest fantasies of Darwinism, this one is somehow beyond your limit. I guess it can't be helped.

Quote
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?
What errors? Failure to make assumptions & presuppositions? Failure to define "out-of-place" = "reworked" by default?

Quote
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.
Oh? The scientific method consists of saying such does it? Thanks for the clarification; but I'm sure I disagree.

I like other methods. Examining the fossil for bits of carried-over rock would make sense. Any cavity should contain elements of the original "layer" if there was any reworking involved. The place where the fossil was found should have some clues also. That's my idea of how science should be conducted. The list is well-documented, and whoever collected a given fossil has already made some observations, in keeping with "how science works" in practice.

Quote
How silly would it be to declare the theory of evolution to be erroneous because of some reworked pollen fossils that someone had found?
How silly would it be to maintain wishful faith when simple, obvious evidence is available which reveals the truth? All you & your source can say is you hope a mistake was made in collecting the evidence. You have no evidence of such a mistake - not in any of the 236 cases on the list. None.

Quote
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.
Taking obfuscation lessons from LinearAq now?
Quote
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?
So, forgetting all the evidence you just reviewed about rapid burial too... You sure you're LindaLou? I'm not. I'm thinking there's a good chance Linear's logged in on her account.

Quote
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.
Rather not muddy the waters? Now I know this ain't LindaLou.

Quote
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?
Um... Well, stranger, it's still an index fossil & there's no point arguing about if it should be included in a list of index fossils. If I make a list of foods, is there a problem with listing things that have little nutritional value along with the others?

Here's an example of Dictyonema being used as an index fossil.

But google for "index fossils" and what do you get? Ammonites everywhere!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/IndexFossils.shtml
http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/belvedere/materials/Mass-Extinctions/Indfoss.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ammonites-index-fossils-invertebrate.html
That's enough. There's no shortage. And ammonites are subject to just the same criticism. "Without citing the species..." In fact, they're far worse.
'Tis easy to see who's not actually reading things. This was a blatantly phony charge to bring against anyone. Kevin R. Henke says more about himself than anyone else when he tries such a stunt, and rudely insults the intelligence of any reader.

I wonder if he'll do as your 2 Glen's commonly do and start pulling down his junk as it gains exposure.
Quote
In answer to your other questions, in situ means in its original place.
But you don't apply that meaning. At least LindaLou doesn't. I doubt if you would either.

Quote
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?
I've admitted no such thing. Forget it Linear - I'm onto your game. Log in under your own account & let LindaLou return with her mantras.

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