. Again quoting unprofessionals is not a valid case against a peer review of a phd geologist.
So let's recap some ideas.
1. The biostartigraphy of the environments discussed in my papers and in Austin's paper as well, note The presence of things such as briozoans crinoids, bivalves, gastropods and cephalopods. Which are all animals that we would find in shallow marine continental shelf environments. Which are calm and regular depositional environments. Research suggests that deposition at continental margins occurs at rates of up to 1cm a year, so it really wouldn't take long for a Nautiloids burial in a vertical position.
2. Stratigraphy is described as finely laminated planar silts. Nothing brecciated. Homogenous. Nothing that would indicate any sort of chaotic occurance.
3. One paper described telescoped shells in which internal shells had laminations of fine sediment, perpendicular to laminations observed within External shells. Another case for gradual burial.
4. Graptolite comets demonstrate the passage of time of vertical nautiloids shells while only partially buried. Which is the opposite of what Steve Austin was suggesting (instant complete burial), which means that austins video is wrong in it's presentation of this idea that a nautiloid couldn't stand vertically in a gradual depositional environment.
5. Graptolite comets were listed in at least 2 of my presented papers. Here is another:
Error - Cookies Turned Off
So now we've migrated away from the subject of the papers to the authors of these papers:
Of these papers there is Turek Vojtech RNDr., Jiri Kris PhD, RNDr. and Annalisa Ferretti PhD., Peter storch PhD., Stepan Manda RNDr., PhD, David Loydell PhD.
If we wanted to, we could easily find plenty of strongly credentialed paleontologists who reject this idea of Steve Austin's rapid burial and instantaneous deposition as being necessary for vertical nautiloids burial. As far as credentials go, Steve Austin is well outmatched.
So we have logical reasons to reject Austin's ideas, even without any peer reviewed research (how could this instantaneous burial result in graptolite comets in an environment in which crinoids filter fed from empty nautiloid shells?
Austins ideas are obviously wrong). We also have peer reviewed research behind us and we have a large body of experts as well.
And you can doubt what these people are saying, you can doubt their credentials, you can doubt that these articles are peer reviewed. You can doubt that they even exist if you want to. But that's kind of just on you. It's your own choice and I won't stop you if that's what you want to believe.
And if you completely disregard the scientists (including myself), you're still left with the logical problems of Austin's ideas. But if you want to believe Austin despite all this, I suppose that's your choice.
It's a 2 part issue. You placed a lot of emphasis on credentials, but Austin is way out of his league. So all we can do is turn away from the discussion of credentials and focus on the logical ideas in the papers, but that's where we began and Austin's ideas are clearly wrong for the reasons mentioned above. There's not really anywhere else to go.
You could otherwise just keep doing what you're doing and asking more and more questions which is good to do, But the progress that is being made has continually been in an opposite direction of the conclusions that you're trying to reach. The answers we keep digging up, one day at a time, keep driving the point back to what I've been saying the whole time.
All the papers I've listed are peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, but if you want to deny that too, that is your choice.
To review Dr. Turek Vojtechs credentials, see the following prior post:
Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics
The article in question on Nautiloids was published in Casopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii, which is now superceded by the Czech Journal of Geological Sciences and is now known as the Journal of Geosciences.
Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii. (Journal, magazine, 1956) [WorldCat.org]
View attachment 277502
Časopis pro mineralogii a geologii in SearchWorks catalog
Journal of geosciences in SearchWorks catalog
If you have eyeballs, you can see for yourself (top left corner):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1TyzaSlLA0sjCPbSs5iDDV
So let's see
Turek Vojtech: RNDr. In Paleontology
Steve Austin: PhD. In geology
Good for Steve Austin he has a PhD., His degree isn't in paleontology however. Just to note.
Turek Vojtech: of the 31 articles authored by Turek Vojtech in the following link, at least 20 articles are published specifically on cephalopods.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vojtch_Turek
What about Steve Austin?
Dr. Steve Austin Articles | Answers in Genesis
According to Answers in Genesis, of the 9 magazine and "in depth articles" Steve Austin has written, 0 are on cephalopods. Let's try another source.
The FAST Project
In the above link, 20 articles are listed, only 1 has to do with cephalopods and it's presented in the "creation science fellowship".
Turek Vojtech has lifelong experience studying cephalopods and is active in several academic circles related to paleontology.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3RMrXP5WR9Ga1W24VFPIgZ&cshid=1590259618685
Steve Austin? He is more or less unknown in the world of paleontology, he has little to no known experience with fossils.
Where are Turek Vojtech's articles published? :
He has some 30+ publications in all of the big name journals including the bulletin of geosciences, journal of paleontology, Paleontology, journal of Czech geological sciences and he even served as reviewer of Palaios.
PALAIOS 2011 Reviewers | PALAIOS | GeoScienceWorld
And in case you aren't familiar with these journals, they are all peer reviewed and some are quite prestigious.
Even if Steve Austin were actually accepted and published in non-creationist scientific journals, he would still be far out-credentialed. And that's just after looking at just one paleontologist. I could easily name several paleontologists who would counter Austin's claims. If I really wanted to, I could probably come up with hundreds of paleontologists who have published contrary to Austin's ideas.
So I must ask, how have you come to the conclusion that anyone I've listed is an "unprofessional"? Do you honestly think that Turek Vojtech is an unprofessional? Steve Austin has 0 credentials associated with paleontology and much less cephalopods, Turek Vojtech has some 20 peer reviewed publications specifically on cephalopods.
Austin's degree isn't in paleontology either. So why would his credentials be considered more credible than Turek Vojtech's?