Replies

You are aware that the concept of 'reworking' means that out-of-order fossils are assumed to have been 'reworked', aren't you?

Nice try, but of course there are plenty of fossil types that are NOT prone to reworking (e.g. being formed in one sediment, then eroding out of that sediment and being consolidating into another) and therefore COULD falsify evolution and/or the conventional geological time scale, IF they existed (which they don't).

Consider that a fossil must be robust to be reworked. For example a clam shell, or even a leg bone or other large sturdy bone from a mammal or a reptile, might easily get reworked. But not a leaf. A leaf, even if fossilized, simply wouldn't survive long enough on a depositional surface to get reworked. Nor would small, delicate bones like those of most fishes. Nor would a complete and articulated skeleton. Dozens and dozens of bones don't erode out of one sediment and then get consolidated into another just happening to all end up back together and falling into the correct arrangement.

There are plenty of fossils that are clearly and indisputably in situ (formed in place), and therefore COULD falsify evolution without reworking being possible as an explanation, but no such exist.

"Consider that a fossil must be robust to be reworked. For example a clam shell, or even a leg bone or other large sturdy bone from a mammal or a reptile, might easily get reworked. But not a leaf. A leaf, even if fossilized, simply wouldn't survive long enough on a depositional surface to get reworked. Nor would small, delicate bones like those of most fishes. Nor would a complete and articulated skeleton. Dozens and dozens of bones don't erode out of one sediment and then get consolidated into another just happening to all end up back together and falling into the correct arrangement."

Woodmorappe is criticized for pointing out just the type of small, delicate, out-of-order fossils that you say can't be reworked.

They must really be out-of-order then, huh?