[Stultis]

"No he isn't. Most of his examples are pollen, spores and such. Small, maybe, but not delicate, and ubiquitous as heck. VERY easily reworked (or contaminating sediments they weren't ever actually part of)."

Ah, there's that 'reworking' arugment that I mentioned to 'atlaw'. He seemed completely unaware of it.

Here is Woodmorappe responding to Morton.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

Um, yeah. Whatever. You're aware that article has nothing, even indirectly, to do with fossil "reworking" aren't you? But then, very possibly you aren't. If you can't savvy the distinction between "spontaneous generation" and pre-biotic chemical evolution, then maybe the distinction between relative and absolute dating is equally mysterious.

The "Woodmorappe" article you link concerns absolute dating (dating in years, as by radiometric dating of rocks), whereas fossil reworking is an issue of relative dating (dating by position within the geologic column).

In any case Glenn Morton responded to it here:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/woodrad.htm

BTW, "Woodmorappe" neglects to tell you something very interesting about Morton's original response to his own original paper: that it was published when Morton himself was still also a young earth creationist.

[GourmetDan]

"It's easy to assert that all of historical geology is b.s. when you don't have to actually do anything with it, or with any supposed alternative."

I think you've forgotten the conversation trail.

You claimed that reworking didn't apply to small, delicate fossils. I then proposed Woodmorappe's work as being real problems since they involved small, delicate fossils, the very ones you claim cannot be reworked. You failed to answer.

As for Morton's 'response'. All I saw was more misrepresentation of Woodmorappe, as expected.