More dishonesty from creationists. This is a question directed at Tyronehster. From his article Let’s pretend, published on 16 September 2013 at 08:59, to be found at http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Lets-Pretend-20130916, Tyronehster claims: We won’t even go to the fossil record, because we know it’s incomplete, but here another interesting question: Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong. Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations such structural changes can be supported by physical evidence while elsewhere physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may be required using fossils or radiometric dating. This is a geological question but, seeing as the two disciplines are so interlocked, it would be interesting to hear the answer. In the comments at 10:30 on the same date, Omnivore asked: “ Please cite one example where normal geological processes do not account for these "Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column." I dare you. You are now treading on the knife edge of crackpot creationism.” Tyronehster answered at 11:51, also on the same date: Again, I'm no expert and haven't seen it for myself, but I'm reliably informed, not by Creationist sites, that these anomalies occur more frequently than is suggested by geologists. Tyronehster, could you provide a reference to a reliable non-creationist (that means peer-reviewed scientific) reference where this can be found?