Many fossils are out of place (Talk.Origins)

Claim CC340:


 * There are over 200 published instances of anomalously occurring fossils, or fossils that show up in strata of ages much different ages than expected.

Source:
 * Woodmorappe, John, 1982. Anomalously Occurring Fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly 18 (March).

CreationWiki response:

The simple fact is that this entire list adds up to making the alleged fossil order totally untestable since any anomalous fossil can simply be explained away by any of these methods. That is not to mean that they are totally illegitimate, but they remove from the fossil record a main tenet of science: falsifiability.
 * 1) Actually, it can be shown that the main criteria for labeling a fossil as "reworked" is nothing more than the fossil being found in strata dated as younger than it should be.  Extra wear on such fossils helps justify the label, but it is not the main criteria.  Not only can so-called reworked fossils have less wear than indigenous fossils, but it is unlikely that fossils with a lot of wear found in the correct strata would be considered reworked.
 * 2) Likewise, the main criteria for labeling a fossil as "washed down" is nothing more than the fossil being found in strata dated as older than it should be.
 * 3) Range extensions are legitimate, but there are definite limits to how much range extension evolutionists can accept.
 * 4) While misidentification of fossils can occur, it is not likely to occur when the fossil is fairly complete, but it makes a nice excuse.  It also works both ways.
 * 5) While uncertainty about where the fossil came from does occur, it's also the easiest to prevent.  Furthermore, the uncertainty works both ways.
 * Reference: Studies in Flood Geology

While this is legitimate, there are definite limits to how much of this evolutionists can accept. For example a human fossil in Cambrian rock would never be accepted as a range extension. Similarly, when creationists claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, evolutionists are quick to reject this, rather than accept this as a range extension.

Furthermore, here is a quote from Woodmorappe:

I have shown in my diluviological treatise that biostratigraphic conflicts are usually resolved in a younger direction. For instance, if a uniquely-Cambrian and uniquely-Carboniferous fossil is found to coexist, it is much more likely that the Cambrian fossil will have its range extended upwards into Carboniferous, or the Cambrian fossil will be labelled 'reworked' into Carboniferous, than the opposite (that is, having the Carboniferous fossil's range extended downwards into Cambrian, or labelling the Carboniferous fossil 'downwashed' into Cambrian).

This one is pathetic. Not only does the list itself contain more than 200 fossils, but Woodmorappe makes it clear that the list does not contain all documented anomalous fossils. It is clear that this list only represents a small fraction of the total number. Second, to compare over 200 fossils known to be anomalous with every other fossil, including uncatalogued ones, as though all these other are known to be not anomalous, is ridiculous.