Glenn Morton, Animal Burrows and the Global Flood

[Dave Hawkins]

And you're still stuck with the fact that the asteroids got there somehow. And a lot of really smart people have been baffled for a really long time trying to explain them.

actually while there are issues, the issues are extremely minor compared to those faced by walt's scenario. The most likely scenario is the collapse of a nebula, most likely due to a nearby supernova. Of the issues that you have raised you have only looked at them in an incredibly superficial manner.

Also, don't forget that the success or failure of Walt's asteroid theory has no effect on the veracity of the Book of Genesis.

that's true; we already know that it is a bronze age myth and nothing more.

I understand that you believe that Genesis is a bronze age myth. I obviously disagree. Separate (and time consuming) topic though.

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation. I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild. I will agree that I haven't scrutinized the CW Hypothesis (the leading one I think) as much as I have Walt's. The reason for this is simply because it has become clear to me that Design Denialist Researchers (I assume that Chambers and Wetherill fall into this category) have a pretty abysmal history of failed theories precisely because of their unwillingness to consider the elephants in the living room, i.e. the possibility of a Designer interfering in natural law, ancient texts as valid sources for scientific hypotheses, etc.

Have you had a chance to read my debate with Glenn Morton yet? I would like to hear your comments on it either here or at TWeb.

[Rhaedas]

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation. I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild.

After multiple lengthy threads explaining to you not only the problems with Walt's "theory", but explaining basic astrophysics in order to see why conventional theory is well accepted, you say this. I think that speaks mountains. Not a surprise to anyone that has followed your *cough* discussions before, but still...

I will agree that I haven't scrutinized the CW Hypothesis (the leading one I think) as much as I have Walt's. The reason for this is simply because it has become clear to me that Design Denialist Researchers (I assume that Chambers and Wetherill fall into this category) have a pretty abysmal history of failed theories precisely because of their unwillingness to consider the elephants in the living room, i.e. the possibility of a Designer interfering in natural law, ancient texts as valid sources for scientific hypotheses, etc.

Translation: you like Walt's better, so it will work, and damn the torpedoes. So much for open-minded scientific approach.

[ninewands]

Design Denialist Researchers

:ROFL: Please, Dave ... you've got me laughing so hard at you that my ribs HURT!

Dave,
Be serious for once ... PLEASE! There are no such things as "Design Denialist Researchers." They are called "scientists." They gather evidence (data), they formulate hypotheses to explain the evidence, they test their hypotheses and try to develop theories that explain the evidence. They do NOT try to "falsify" the theory, or hypothesis, of an external designer because there is NO such scientifically valid theory or hypothesis. Notice ... PLEASE ... they work FROM the data TO the conclusion CONSTRAINED BY the "laws of nature" as they understand them (and that understanding is pretty damned good after ONLY about 350 years of "true science" existing). Any data that is ignored or discarded must still be disclosed and the scientist's reason for ignoring or discarding it MUST be explained.

A "Cdesign proponentsist", on the other hand STARTS with a conclusion (there is a "designer") and then staples, folds, bends, mutilates and selectively ignores the evidence (data) until they FORCE what is left of "the data" to support their pre-existing conclusion, unconstrained by ANY laws of nature or by the need to explain why they have discarded or ignored certain data. This is part of what your "hero," Walt Brown, has done in his "Hydroplate Theory." The other thing he has done is, "When faced with a lack of evidence, make shit up, the marks will NEVER understand it enough to know you did it!" For once would you PLEASE open your eyes to the truth?

The reason there is no such thing as a "Design Denialist Researcher" is because there is not only NO evidence of a "designer," there has been NO data found in the last 350 years that REQUIRES, or even SUGGESTS the existence of a "designer." In short there is NOTHING to deny. ALL of the data relating to the Theory of Evolution (which is all of life, existing and extinct) fits the theory. NONE of it has to be discarded to make it work. Because of the statement in boldface, above, the potential existence of a "designer" is superfluous. Occam's Razor shaves away your "designer" with no nasty razor burn.

[ericmurphy]

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation.

Dave, you haven't read enough of the conventional literature to have the basis for any opinion on the matter. You've read, what, an abstract of one paper on the entire subject of planetary formation? On the basis of that one paper you've decided that all of planetary astronomy is wrong? GMAFB, Dave.

I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild.

It's not just wild, Dave. It's physically impossible. Every single part of it is physically impossible. Walt's theory requires multiple simultaneous miracles. Not a tiny little miracle here and there; grotesque violations of physical law are required. This has been demonstrated to you again and again and again and again and again, not on one aspect of the "theory" but on every aspect of it.

I will agree that I haven't scrutinized the CW Hypothesis (the leading one I think) as much as I have Walt's.

You "think" based on what, Dave? You know zero about astronomy. You have absolutely no basis for thinking the CW hypothesis is the "leading" theory, you have limited understanding of what that theory is, and you have no knowledge or understanding of any other theories or what the differences between them are. You certainly haven't shown any fundamental problems in the general category of accretionary models, and don't know them in remotely enough detail to make a judgment as to whether they are viable or not.

The reason for this is simply because it has become clear to me that Design Denialist Researchers (I assume that Chambers and Wetherill fall into this category) have a pretty abysmal history of failed theories precisely because of their unwillingness to consider the elephants in the living room, i.e. the possibility of a Designer interfering in natural law, ancient texts as valid sources for scientific hypotheses, etc.

No. They have failed (where they have failed, and you haven't yet shown any examples of "failed accretionary theories") because they do not comport with observational reality, not because they refuse to assume goddidit. There is nothing about any physical phenomenon ever discovered that cannot be made sense of without appeal to goddidit.

Goddidit isn't a theory, Dave, or even a hypothesis. It's an admission of complete and total intellectual defeat.

[Lasting Damage]

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation. I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild.

so let me get this straight. You don't think it is possible for a cloud to collapse under gravity, and for the particles to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturabations, however you do think it is possible for bits to be fired from earth, pass through the orbits of multiple planets into a neat mostly circular orbit ignoring the kirkwood gaps, be pushed out and circularised by some unknown force and then to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturbations.

[Lasting Damage]

Dave, you haven't read enough of the conventional literature to have the basis for any opinion on the matter. You've read, what, an abstract of one paper on the entire subject of planetary formation? On the basis of that one paper you've decided that all of planetary astronomy is wrong? GMAFB, Dave.

the really weird thing, is that his model requires every bit of the conventional models to actually work, in order for his own model to work. If dust and particles cannot stick together in the conventional model to form larger bodies such as asteroids and minor planets (ceres and vega) then it sure as hell can't happen in his own scenario.

[VoxRat]

That's entertainment! - as the expression goes.

Watching Dave get his severed ass handed to him by a self-described conservative Christian, former YEC...

Watching the faux-polite, faux-reasonable Dave morph into the whiny, persecution-complex, "they're calling me names" Dave in the space of a few pages...

Watching the "Hey, everybody! Come on over and watch me tangle with the Big Boys" Dave morph into the "let's change the subject... again" Dave...

That's entertainment!

[Dave Hawkins]

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation. I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild.

so let me get this straight. You don't think it is possible for a cloud to collapse under gravity, and for the particles to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturabations, however you do think it is possible for bits to be fired from earth, pass through the orbits of multiple planets into a neat mostly circular orbit ignoring the kirkwood gaps, be pushed out and circularised by some unknown force and then to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturbations.

No. You've misunderstood me. If you start a new thread, I'll explain.

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

[mung bean]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

Davey boy, how do you do it? You got seriously pwned by Glenn and you're acting like you're the only person in the world who can't see it.

[Occam's Aftershave]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Davie, you're the funniest thing on the web, bar none!

Everybody, PLEASE go over and watch lying Dave Hawkins get the living shit kicked out of him, them declare victory!

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

[mung bean]

But Occam's, he always does that.

[Black5]

It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

What isn't eyeopening is your behavior and "discussion" tactics. It's the same dishonesty we've seen over and over. By all means, encourage people to read the thread. Your ego is much larger then your intellect and your dishonesty is apparent.

[Coleslaw]

No. You've misunderstood me. If you start a new thread, I'll explain.

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

:slaphead:

[Rhaedas]

As for asteroids, the conventional literature I've read does not give me the impression that there are any really good answers for asteroid formation. I don't think Walt's idea is all that wild.

so let me get this straight. You don't think it is possible for a cloud to collapse under gravity, and for the particles to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturabations, however you do think it is possible for bits to be fired from earth, pass through the orbits of multiple planets into a neat mostly circular orbit ignoring the kirkwood gaps, be pushed out and circularised by some unknown force and then to stick together over time due to collisions and gravitational perturbations.

No. You've misunderstood me. If you start a new thread, I'll explain.

Oh, another Hydroplate thread. That would be fun.

I have doubts on the explanation part though. You never got around to doing that the first go around.

[Gary Hurd]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

HAAHAAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHA

Ususally when someone types "LOL" they really didn't laugh out loud.

I really did laugh out loud.

[Coleslaw]

Smiley for you:
:rofl:

[Cephus]

So lets get this right, you are having a discussion with someone on another board and you are trying to understand his objections to your points. So you open a new thread at a different board about the subject.
That about right?

Doubt it will really help, I've known Glenn for a long time, in fact I was one of the reviewers for his first book and he doesn't listen so well to thinks he doesn't want to hear.

Ah well, got a autographed pre-release copy of the book at least.

[Elká]

Have you had a chance to read my debate with Glenn Morton yet? I would like to hear your comments on it either here or at TWeb.

Yes, I've read your debate with Glenn and you haven't learned diddly squat since your days in the Air Force davey.

Your personality flaws kept you out of a seat with a weapons system and for that all I can say is NAMEN!

Elká

Why does Glenn tell you to get out in the real world and learn some geology? You can't learn it in your easy chair davey. Get yourself an Estwing rock hammer, a pocket loupe, some Timberland hiking boots and let's go davey.

[Lasting Damage]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

yeah, cos you know, Glenn doesn't know much about geology.

[Lasting Damage]

I switched to mobile mode, and now it looks even worse, and I can't find the options to turn it back.

[Dave Hawkins]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

yeah, cos you know, Glenn doesn't know much about geology.

I'm sure he knows a lot about finding oil for oil companies, but this has very little (if anything) to do with understanding how the geologic record came to be in the first place -- i.e. Geologic Origins. He has some very odd ideas ... he thinks that burrowing animals would have all been smashed by the Flood--says that the cause of death in flash floods today is because people's legs get broken causing them to drown! He clings to this in spite of a study I showed him to the contrary. He apparently was completely unaware of burrowing shrimp which burrow very deeply (and very quickly) under the surface of the ocean floor. He says that annelids (marine worms) would not be able to make burrows after being buried by Flood sediments, yet they burrow just fine all day long in the muck under 80+ meters of sea water. He compared these worms to a skiier stuck in an avalanche and completely ignored it when I pointed out that a skiier was not adapted to digging ... annelids are. He ridiculed me for not reading an Ichnology book before debating him, yet when I supplied him a statement from an Ichnology journal which made it clear that many "burrows" can be non-biogenic (gas escape and other things), he hand waves it away. No study to counter me. Nothing. Just "Bah ... those professional ichnologists are wrong." I could go on and on. I'm planning on a very detailed closing post Monday morning. He's misleading people on his web site and I'm going to say so loud and clear.

I tell you, Jet Black ... I'm very disappointed. There are many people at non-Christian forums who do not claim to be Christians at all who I would rather debate in the future. They are more honest and behave better.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I'm sure he knows a lot about finding oil for oil companies, but this has very little (if anything) to do with understanding how the geologic record came to be in the first place -- i.e. Geologic Origins. He has some very odd ideas ... he thinks that burrowing animals would have all been smashed by the Flood--says that the cause of death in flash floods today is because people's legs get broken causing them to drown! He clings to this in spite of a study I showed him to the contrary. He apparently was completely unaware of burrowing shrimp which burrow very deeply (and very quickly) under the surface of the ocean floor. He says that annelids (marine worms) would not be able to make burrows after being buried by Flood sediments, yet they burrow just fine all day long in the muck under 80+ meters of sea water. He compared these worms to a skiier stuck in an avalanche and completely ignored it when I pointed out that a skiier was not adapted to digging ... annelids are. He ridiculed me for not reading an Ichnology book before debating him, yet when I supplied him a statement from an Ichnology journal which made it clear that many "burrows" can be non-biogenic (gas escape and other things), he hand waves it away. No study to counter me. Nothing. Just "Bah ... those professional ichnologists are wrong." I could go on and on. I'm planning on a very detailed closing post Monday morning. He's misleading people on his web site and I'm going to say so loud and clear.

I WON THAT FIGHT!! Just look at the damage I did to that guy's fist! I'M GONNA TELL EVERYONE!!

[Black5]

I'm sure he knows a lot about finding oil for oil companies, but this has very little (if anything) to do with understanding how the geologic record came to be in the first place -- i.e. Geologic Origins.

Glenn has read the bible and since that seems to be your source for "scientific" knowledge of Geologic Origins I'd say he is just as qualified as you are. However, everyone (including you in your lying little heart), know this really isn't enough. Therefore, I'd say Glenn's decades of practical experience trumps your two weeks of experience.

He has some very odd ideas ...

Pot calling kettled anyone? Speaking of weird ideas. How about believing that the earth that is less then 10,000 years old despite all the observational and experimental evidence to the contrary? Or drag racing continents? Or asteroids from the deep? Or Great Flood? Or, ... well everyone else gets my point.

he thinks that burrowing animals would have all been smashed by the Flood--says that the cause of death in flash floods today is because people's legs get broken causing them to drown!

Flood debris injure or knock unconscious people caught in the flood and then they drown.

He also provided a video of a flood with a sediment load similar to what would have to exist in your "one mile of water and two miles of sediment" Great Flood theory. You admit "your shrimp buddies" wouldn't survive and yet never provided a rational explanation as to how any marine creature could survive a similar Global Flood that lasts a year.

He clings to this in spite of a study I showed him to the contrary.

You are the one who is clinging. To your ridiculous, scientifically unsupportable ideas. The mental gymnastics you go through to do so is frankly scary.

He apparently was completely unaware of burrowing shrimp which burrow very deeply (and very quickly) under the surface of the ocean floor. He says that annelids (marine worms) would not be able to make burrows after being buried by Flood sediments, yet they burrow just fine all day long in the muck under 80+ meters of sea water.

You failed to explain how any creature that burrows slower then sediment deposit rate necessary for your Great Flood theory would survive, burrowing, without eating for a year.

He compared these worms to a skiier stuck in an avalanche and completely ignored it when I pointed out that a skiier was not adapted to digging ... annelids are. He ridiculed me for not reading an Ichnology book before debating him, yet when I supplied him a statement from an Ichnology journal which made it clear that many "burrows" can be non-biogenic (gas escape and other things), he hand waves it away. No study to counter me. Nothing. Just "Bah ... those professional ichnologists are wrong.".

Wrong and dishonest Dave. He said "Gas escape structures are easily distinguishable from burrows. Burrow have a slightly different material filling them in. Gas escape features don't. Secondly at 4 to 8 feet per hour of sedimentation, it the pressures will quickly force any gas into solution." He then continued by suggesting that you read the entire chapter in the Ichnology journal you provided for more information regarding this quote. That isn't hand waving. Hand waving is ignoring evidence that is counter to your claim which you did.

Speaking of hand waving and a lack of studies how about providing evidence to back up your claim that:

4) PRE-FLOOD SOIL There is much evidence that pre-Flood soil was far richer than modern soil. The evidence for this comes from, among other places, GRISDA. This is an entire study by itself. Suffice to say for now that YEC scientists have studied this extensively. I will refrain from providing evidence for this at the moment in order to not get distracted from the topic of this thread.

Many people have asked you to back up this claim and you have ignored them all.

I could go on and on.

As you tend to do.

I'm planning on a very detailed closing post Monday morning. He's misleading people on his web site and I'm going to say so loud and clear

It is obvious who is being dishonest and misleading. Feel free to provide more evidence.

I tell you, Jet Black ... I'm very disappointed. There are many people at non-Christian forums who do not claim to be Christians at all who I would rather debate in the future. They are more honest and behave better.

I tell you, Dave Hawkins ... I'm not disappointed at all. The lack of honesty you continue to display is what we have come to expect from you.

[ericmurphy]

This one's really about Glenn and Animal Burrows. He's done trying to defend himself and has resorted to name calling. I really thought he would stay above that, but no. Did you ever get over there to read the debate? It's pretty eyeopening to see his behavior and his inability to defend his position.

yeah, cos you know, Glenn doesn't know much about geology.

I'm sure he knows a lot about finding oil for oil companies, but this has very little (if anything) to do with understanding how the geologic record came to be in the first place -- i.e. Geologic Origins.

Dave, you seem to think no one here has actually read your debate with Glenn. We've watched him eviscerate every single argument from you, leaving you with nothing to stand on. And the single biggest problem with all of your arguments is your failure to understand that you are not talking about a "flood." A mixture of 30% water and 70% sediment is not a "flood." It's a mudslide. How do your "adapted for burrowing" annelids "burrow" in a mudslide?

Another problem is, how do you account for the number of burrows found in the geological column? You think they were all caused by gas bubbles? You'd best hope 99% of them were caused by gas bubbles, because you have to get rid of 99% of your worms. You haven't addressed that problem with your argument at all.

And we've explained ad nauseum how your supersonic burrowing shrimp don't help you. Your strategy for dealing with that fatal problem with your "argument" has been to ignore it.

No wonder Glenn thinks you're an ignorant git. Everyone else does anyway.

[Dlx2]

Jesus Christ, Dave, you don't know how to shut up, no matter where you are.

Let's talk burrows.

I've done some work on burrows, actually, so I know a bit about the issues. Now, the material I've worked on isn't the marine ichnofossil faunas that Glenn Morton is discussing, but that's irrelevant. You'll soon see why.

I study lungfish evolution. One of the cool things about modern lungfishes (genus Protopterus and genus Lepidosiren) is that they have this odd behavior of digging burrows and living in these during the dry season, going into a form of torpor called estivation. Now, these are freshwater fishes, and they are digging these burrows when the ponds, swamps, and other wetlands they live in dry up. These are not escape burrows. A lungfish does not dig a burrow to "escape" from a flood. A lungfish digs a burrow to maintain some semblance of hydration when the water level drops below the sediment surface. Lungfish, as you might have guessed, have primitive lungs, which they use to process oxygen in exactly the same way that tetrapods do. A lungfish can survive up to 7 years in such a state.

Now, we find lungfish burrows in the fossil record, primarily at the end of the Carboniferous and the beginning of the Permian. These burrows are associated with other burrows belonging to an animal called a lysorophian, a kind of ancient amphibian which seems to do the exact same thing. This is not really surprising; many species of amphibian today burrow to wait out the dry season.

Now, the lungfish from the Permian that are associated with these burrows are something called Gnathorhiza (and another closely related genus I'm currently describing). They're found in sedimentary horizons with things like mudcracks, dewatering horizons, root casts, and other evidence of periodic drying. In fact, the geology overwhelmingly supports the recognition that the North American climate in the early Permian subject to rainy and dry seasons within each annual cycle.

Now, I don't really know what you think composes Pre-Flood, Cis-Flood, and Post-Flood deposits, but I have seen the Coconino Sandstone mentioned, and the Coconino is situated right in the middle of the temporal range including these lungfish burrows. So, at the same time as this supposed "global flood," there are areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah that are drying out seasonally, to the point that the animals living there have evolved to survive that seasonal dessication.

So please, Dave, please explain to me how gnathorhizid lungfishes fit into your model. Because as far as I can see, they don't.