OK Glenn--

Way too many simultaneous topics here <Prepares self for joke from Glenn about how my wee brain can't handle simultaneous topics>. Let's do one at a time ...

2) Those enigmatic tubular trace fossils up to eight meters (!!) long seem to pose a serious problem for your "Burrows are a problem for YECs" theory. If they really are animal burrows and they got buried by a massive sand deposit, then this confirms everything I have said about the response behavior of burrowers getting buried.

The problem Wee DAve is with your logic. You have not demonstrated that they were in fact buried by a massive sand deposit rather than merely having burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface. And no, it does not hurt my view to have very deep, very rare burrows. I don't see any problem that presents unless they are so common that I need to re-do my math presented above. But, such burrows are so rare, so unusual, that they are not the norm and for mathematical purposes of determining the pre-flood burrower density, are totally and utterly irrelevant to the problem.

Obviously, this does not yet prove there was a single Global Flood, but it sure helps the theory a lot.

No, you are right Wee Dave that it doesn't provide proof of a global flood. So why are you acting like it is a big deal? <Snip question about burrowing dinos>

If they are NOT animal burrows, then this helps confirm my other statements that we should not be so sure that all those "burrows" really are animal burrows. Any comment on this conundrum?

That is a big IF Wee Dave. Just because you can use the words 'if they are not' doesn't make it be that 'they are not'. In other words, your wee-boy logic seems to think that 'if they are not' = 'they are not'. And of course, those two phrases are not at all the same.

Now ... I'm happy to address your burrowing Egyptian mammals and your Cave Dwelling Pterodactyls and whatever else you want to throw at me, but I think you haven't answered this particular item very well.

You say my logic is bad, but you miss the point that it's not MY logic that's at issue here. I'm just the guy pointing out the study to you. If you want to fault someone for bad logic, fault the researchers, who, I would assume, you trust a wee (I know you like that word) bit more than you trust me. So what you have here is two scientists writing in the Journal of Paleontology giving you--Glenn Morton, Torch Bearer for OEC's Everywhere--two choices ...

Door A: The preponderance of evidence favors the hypothesis that the structures are escape burrows of animals that had colonized, or were concentrated in, the lag and were suddenly buried by the deposition of the massive sand.

Door B: ... several characteristics of the structures and the enclosing sediments indicate that they may be completely inorganic in origin.

Got that?

SUDDEN BURIAL BY SAND

OR (notice that this is a common English word which denotes multiple possibilities)

COMPLETELY INORGANIC ORIGIN

Or we could call it "Poison A" and "Poison B" because either one is poisonous to your ideas.

You say that I have not demonstrated that they were in fact buried by a massive sand deposit rather than merely having burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface.

And you are right. There is no need for me to demonstrate this and I couldn't if I wanted to. I'm not a primary researcher and don't want to become one. These researchers cannot demonstrate it either BTW. All we can do is make some educated guesses from the evidence that we have. And one of their guesses is NOT "burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface." Now you can say that if you want to, but you supposedly place a high value on mainstream scientists opinions, so I'm giving you one.

Next, you start in again about these burrows being so rare and what not. Whoa! You don't KNOW that they are rare. The truth is--if you were honest--you would say that they are poorly studied. Saying they are rare is misleading and it's exactly the kind of "wickedness" you were trying to falsely accuse me of. They are probably NOT rare, but obviously I cannot say that for sure and neither can you. Why in the world should they be? Do you have any idea what kind of miniscule infinitesimal fraction of the geologic record AND the top 50 meters of the ocean floor we have studied? It's small. Really, really small, Glenn.

Why am I acting like it's a big deal if it doesn't prove my Global Flood? Here's why. Because you are claiming that burrows are some kind of fatal flaw for YECs, that's why. You claim that there are all these zillions of animal burrows in the geologic record that would make all YEC calculators melt down and so on, but you ignore the point that many of these cotton pickin' things are probably not animal burrows at all!! I've now given you two sources from the literature which support what I am saying here and what do you do? Spit on it and call me "Wee Dave." Classy.

Then you go on and on about how no burrowers could possibly burrow this much if massive sediment got dumped on them. I show you Door A above, which if true, blows your idea away and again, it's "Wee Dave, your logic is bad." Then you misrepresent me where you say "In other words, your wee-boy logic seems to think that 'if they are not' = 'they are not'. And of course, those two phrases are not at all the same." when I made it very clear from the beginning that BOTH of these options are possibilities. Notice the special English word study above just for you.

All this and you have the audacity to say I'M the wicked one who's hiding data.

Respectfully Yours,

Wee Dave

Dave is taking maximum advantage of the probabilistic nature of science. No matter that YEC seems much less probable than YEC.

Dave, two points.

1. First you say this:

Door A: The preponderance of evidence favors the hypothesis that the structures are escape burrows of animals that had colonized, or were concentrated in, the lag and were suddenly buried by the deposition of the massive sand.

Door B: ... several characteristics of the structures and the enclosing sediments indicate that they may be completely inorganic in origin.

Got that?

SUDDEN BURIAL BY SAND

OR (notice that this is a common English word which denotes multiple possibilities)

COMPLETELY INORGANIC ORIGIN

Or we could call it "Poison A" and "Poison B" because either one is poisonous to your ideas.

Hmm. There seems to be some leap in logic here.

Can you explain why "poison B" is "poisonous" to Glenn's ideas?

Did you read the article, dave? The authors are NOT talking about normal burrows. Not by a longshot. They are talking about weird, unique features, that stand out of other "burrow-type" formations, and bear some very peculiar characteristics.
In fact, that IS why their explanation for them was controversial: Noone even thought of them as burrows before.

So tell me: If those features were proved to be of inorganic origin, how on earth would that indicate that ALL common burrows, abundant throughout the GC, are of inorganic origin?


2. Then you also say this:

Next, you start in again about these burrows being so rare and what not. Whoa! You don't KNOW that they are rare. The truth is--if you were honest--you would say that they are poorly studied. Saying they are rare is misleading and it's exactly the kind of "wickedness" you were trying to falsely accuse me of. They are probably NOT rare, but obviously I cannot say that for sure and neither can you. Why in the world should they be? Do you have any idea what kind of miniscule infinitesimal fraction of the geologic record AND the top 50 meters of the ocean floor we have studied? It's small. Really, really small, Glenn.

Now just waitaminute, dave. How is something defined as "rare"? It is from its frequency of occurence, compared to the whole.
Glenn says that we know it's rare, because most burrowers never go below a few feet. That is a statistical assessment, derived from observation. Glenn does not say "we don't know of many burrowers, and those we know of are 'poorly studied', therefore most never dig below a few feet". No he says: "We know of MANY burrowers, and they are WELL-studied, and most don't dig below a few feet".

Can you dispute that?

Because it seems like YOU are the one who argues that way. Just by using two words from a text that speaks on the behavior of certain burrowers, a text from many years ago, you ASSERT that ALL burrowers are "poorly studied", THEREFORE there are probably many, many more burrowers we know nothing of, and all of them burrow for meters and meters.



Do I have to spell it out for you? Here it is, in simple form, using your all-time favorite example...

Glenn Glenn says most swans are white. You claim most swans are black.
Glenn points out to you that most swans we know of are white, not black. You reply that well, the color of swans is "poorly studied", and you bet that there are many more swans we know nothing of, and that you bet the color of all those unidentified swans is black, therefore it's safe to claim that "most swans are black".
Then you challenge Glenn to prove otherwise.

Dave, do I need to point out to you who is making the unsupported assertions here? Or who is trying to shift the burden of proof?

That is all. Feel free to respond to these points, if you think you can. Or don't. It doesn't really matter anymore; at this point, your silence is as deafening an admission of defeat as any.

Dave, as always, you are missing the fact that finding a few burrowers who were able to survive long enough to tunnel modestly-long (eight meter, or what have you) "escape burrows" as the first few meters of "Fludde" sediment hypothetically landed on them--or identifying some "burrows" as of inorganic origin--utterly fails to deal with the presence of ALL those OTHER burrows ALL THROUGH the geologic column.

It's the presence of all those other burrows that devastates YEC accounts of the Fludde.

If you can't comprehend this, compadre, you're beyond help on this issue.

Now, moving right along:
1. Overwhelming over-pressure.
2. Hydrodynamic sorting of fossils.
3. Teh gnashing, grinding, pulverizing "cement mixer" through which ANY burrowers and ANY fossilized remains would have had to pass BEFORE being laid down. Aka, Teh Video.

Enough with the less-than-manly avoidance, davey. Deal with the substance of these objections or defeat will be pronounced upon you , by consensus, in the absence of said dealing, no matter how many non-substantive comments you may continue to submit.

As always, thanks, and Happy New Year to you and yours!

I see I was somehow channeling Faid as I was composing my above comment during his submission of his, just above mine.

I apologize to the long-suffering viewers for any overlap or redundancy in our comments!

Originally posted by Steviepinhead

I see I was somehow channeling Faid as I was composing my above comment during his submission of his, just above mine.

I apologize to the long-suffering viewers for any overlap or redundancy in our comments!

No apologies needed I'm sure. It just reinforces the notion that independent observers can see the exact same logical errors in Dave's attempt at rebuttal.

I saw this too reading Dave, except yours and Faid's messages were already 30 minutes old by now so adding my two cents would just look like piling on instead of independently coming to the same conclusion.

"Soup for you (and Faid)!"

Originally posted by afdave

OK Glenn--

Way too many simultaneous topics here <Prepares self for joke from Glenn about how my wee brain can't handle simultaneous topics>.

No, I feel sorry for you. Most people like me who have spent a lifetime in the business world have had to deal with multiple issues simultaneously, each having multiple variables. You say you have been in business and were a success. Unless you were able to handle multiple issues simulataneously, your success would be more Forrest Gump-like than ability based.

Let's do one at a time ... Now ... I'm happy to address your burrowing Egyptian mammals and your Cave Dwelling Pterodactyls and whatever else you want to throw at me, but I think you haven't answered this particular item very well.

I await your answer. You are dodging again. I answered your questions now you are being a weasel here.

You say my logic is bad, but you miss the point that it's not MY logic that's at issue here.

No, Dave, your logic is at issue (or rather your lack there of. ). You act as if a deep burrow is the commonest thing on earth and that I and others should do our math based upon that. But that is like saying this. Say I want to calculate the total net worth of the US. I use fact that the average familial net worth is $100,000, and using that, the total net worth of the US is $100,000 times the number of families. Then along comes illogical Dave you notes that there are about 100 billionaires in the US. And that because there are billionaires, everyone is a billionaire, and I should use the figure 1 billion times the number of families! Which of course is one of the stupidest things around. That is the stupidity of your logic.

I'm just the guy pointing out the study to you.

No, you are just the guy twisting every study and fact to fit into your preconceived notions. YOu are not even interested in what the studies actually say because you hide from the readers things they clearly say which contradicts your position.

If you want to fault someone for bad logic, fault the researchers, who, I would assume, you trust a wee (I know you like that word) bit more than you trust me.

No, Dave, I fault you. YOu are the one with the problem, who can't handle more than one item at a time. That fact alone doesn't speak well of your reasoning ability.

So what you have here is two scientists writing in the Journal of Paleontology giving you--Glenn Morton, Torch Bearer for OEC's Everywhere--two choices ...

Door A: The preponderance of evidence favors the hypothesis that the structures are escape burrows of animals that had colonized, or were concentrated in, the lag and were suddenly buried by the deposition of the massive sand.

Door B: ... several characteristics of the structures and the enclosing sediments indicate that they may be completely inorganic in origin.

There is a third option, you conveniently ignore. Door C. They are normal burrows and do not represent escape burrows or inorganic traces. Dave, one can't do logic if one doesn't lay out all the possibilities.

It appears that you are trying to extend your illogic above to say that because a few things might be inorganic structures, all therefore are. That is dumb dave.

Got that?

Yes, I understand how illogical you are and how you are nothing but a rhetorical gymnast to whom truth doesn't matter one bit.

SUDDEN BURIAL BY SAND

OR (notice that this is a common English word which denotes multiple possibilities)

COMPLETELY INORGANIC ORIGIN

Or we could call it "Poison A" and "Poison B" because either one is poisonous to your ideas.

Bite your tongue boy. You were not clever enough to even realize that your two options do not outline the entire set of possible options.

You say that I have not demonstrated that they were in fact buried by a massive sand deposit rather than merely having burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface.

And you are right.

And of course, you totally ignored this terribly important point in your two door option above. It shows in this one post how you twist truth to suite your momentary desire.

There is no need for me to demonstrate this and I couldn't if I wanted to. I'm not a primary researcher and don't want to become one.

Ahh, the weenie cop out. YOu come here claiming to be able to learn quickly and put down professionals, but when asked to back up what you say, you turn weenie on us. Of course you couldn't back up what you say. 1. you never do 2. you don't have the ability. 3. you don't have the knowledge. I think that about covers it. But then, above you arrogantly think you can tell us what the truth is even if you can't back anything up with data.

These researchers cannot demonstrate it either BTW. All we can do is make some educated guesses from the evidence that we have. And one of their guesses is NOT "burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface." Now you can say that if you want to, but you supposedly place a high value on mainstream scientists opinions, so I'm giving you one.

Dave, your logic is once again flawed. Just because some burrows are escape structures doesn't mean all burrows are escape structures. Twist the truth a bit more dave.

Next, you start in again about these burrows being so rare and what not. Whoa! You don't KNOW that they are rare. The truth is--if you were honest--you would say that they are poorly studied.

No, Dave, I won't acknowledge that because you can find a statement that something is poorly studied. The statement doesn't make it true. A google scholar search shows over 20,000 articles containing either ichnology or bioturbation. It is quite well studied. If you were honest you would acknowledge this.

Saying they are rare is misleading and it's exactly the kind of "wickedness" you were trying to falsely accuse me of.

Dave, did you tell the people reading your post that the article you claimed demonstrated that animals could escape 'tons and tons' of sediment burial that the article was speaking of burial by 125 micrometers to 1 millimeters? Neither value is 'tons and tons" of sediment as you falsely claimed. No you didn't Wee Dave. I accused you correctly Wee Dave.

They are probably NOT rare, but obviously I cannot say that for sure and neither can you. Why in the world should they be? Do you have any idea what kind of miniscule infinitesimal fraction of the geologic record AND the top 50 meters of the ocean floor we have studied? It's small. Really, really small, Glenn.

That word I bolded Dave means that you don't know but are trying to claim that because you BELEIVE they are not rare we should all bow before you in obeyance and proclaim that the great all-knowing, all-seeing, ever-wicked Wee Dave is right.

As to the small volume actually excavated, you have no right to claim to know what is there before one looks. But, science DOES have the right to use statistical sampling techniques (which are used in many areas of human knowledge) to estimate what is there from what is sampled. This is no different than a political poll.

Why am I acting like it's a big deal if it doesn't prove my Global Flood?

Let me guess. Is it because you are utterly illogical and self-absorbed?

Here's why. Because you are claiming that burrows are some kind of fatal flaw for YECs, that's why. You claim that there are all these zillions of animal burrows in the geologic record that would make all YEC calculators melt down and so on, but you ignore the point that many of these cotton pickin' things are probably not animal burrows at all!! I've now given you two sources from the literature which support what I am saying here and what do you do? Spit on it and call me "Wee Dave." Classy.

When you grow up and act like a responsible adult, I will cease calling you Wee Dave, Wee Dave.

Now to the substance of that paragraph. Dave, I did this before, but your limited ability to handle many issues at once has probably caused you to forget this. Let's assume that all these burrows are not burrows. Lets assume that they are the remains of plant roots. You then have the same problem. Too many plants to fit onto the preflood earth. Indeed, any assay of fossil remains leaves the YEC position in tatters.

There are enough dead coccoliths to cover the earth to a depth of 1 meter.

There are enough dead crinoids to cover the earth to a depth of several feet.

There are enough dead diatoms to cover the earth to a depth of 20 meters

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

Then you go on and on about how no burrowers could possibly burrow this much if massive sediment got dumped on them. I show you Door A above, which if true, blows your idea away and again, it's "Wee Dave, your logic is bad."

Well, wee Dave, you didn't lay out all the possible doors. And by your own admission, you can't prove the doors are the only ones possible. Not only is your logic poor, so is your ability to carry out a proper level of argumentation.

[qutoe] Then you misrepresent me where you say "In other words, your wee-boy logic seems to think that 'if they are not' = 'they are not'. And of course, those two phrases are not at all the same." when I made it very clear from the beginning that BOTH of these options are possibilities. Notice the special English word study above just for you.[/quote]

No, I don't believe you did, Dave. But never-the-less, you haven't laid out all the possibilities. YOu are trying to act as if there are only two doors. You are also trying to act as if proving that burrows are really sticks in the ground you escape the problem. You don't. There would be too many sticks, wee dave.

All this and you have the audacity to say I'M the wicked one who's hiding data.

Dave, did you tell the people reading your post that the article you claimed demonstrated that animals could escape 'tons and tons' of sediment burial that the article was speaking of burial by 125 micrometers to 1 millimeters? Neither value is 'tons and tons" of sediment as you falsely claimed. No you didn't Wee Dave. I accused you correctly Wee Dave.

Respectfully Yours,

Wee Dave

Well, at least you are learning how to properly refer to yourself. Think you might be able to handle more than one thing at a time? Wee people are those who can't handle more than one thing at a time.

BTW, now it is time for you to explain how burrowing dinosaurs survive the flood to be buried and continue burrowing. I am really interested in whether or not you believe that large reptiles can live without oxygen and can be pummeled by rocks and still survive. I only see this in cartoons like the Roadrunner, but then, that cartoon reminds me a bit of the way YECs handle the data (all to the glory of God needless to state).

Lest anyone forget what Wicked Dave is whining about, here's the abstract from the paper again:

Enigmatic Eight-Meter Trace Fossils in the Lower Pennsylvanian Lee Sandstone, Central Appalachian Basin, Tennessee

Christopher Wnuk, John O. Maberry

Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 64, No. 3 (May, 1990), pp. 440-450

Enigmatic tubular trace fossils up to eight meters long occur in the Lower Pennsylvanian Middlesboro Member of the Lee Formation. Two morphotypes occur: type 1 trace fossils are plain, smooth, vertical, nonbranching, parallel-walled, tubular structures; type 2 trace fossils branch, have walls with faint vertical striations, regularly or irregularly spaced nodes, and funnel-shaped terminations. Sandstone casts filling type 2 structures have helical spiral morphology, and, in rare individuals, faint meniscate fills have been observed. Both trace-fossil morphotypes have poorly cemented wall linings containing framboidal pyrite, amorphous carbon, quartz sand, and poorly preserved fecal material. The trace fossils occur in a massive, structureless, channel-form sandstone, originating at the contact between a channel lag and the overlying massive fill. The stratigraphic sequence is interpreted to represent a barrier island transgressing an estuarine facies. A tidal inlet within the barrier facies scoured into the underlying estuarine sediments. Subsequent rapid filling of the inlet led to the deposition of the massive sandstone. Origin of these structures is uncertain. The preponderance of evidence favors the hypothesis that the structures are escape burrows of animals that had colonized, or were concentrated in, the lag and were suddenly buried by the deposition of the massive sand. However, no likely burrower has been identified, and several characteristics of the structures and the enclosing sediments indicate that they may be completely inorganic in origin.

So we're talking about one specific set of unusual trace burrows found in one specific location and caused by one specific tidal inlet being rapidly buried by deposited sand.

Of course Wicked Dave thinks that means ALL trace burrows EVERYWHERE on the planet and in ALL layers of the geologic column were formed the same way.



It's hard to comprehend just how AFDave can concentrate so much stupid into such a small area, and do so repeatedly.

Dave, any chance you're ready to explain how the burrowers avoided HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING yet? Just thought I'd ask.

- T

Uh, Glenn, political polls aren't really scientific. They could be, but the way they're done nowadays . . .

Oh my, Glenn, that Forrest Gump line was a keeper!

Originally posted by Augustine2004

Uh, Glenn, political polls aren't really scientific. They could be, but the way they're done nowadays . . .

I would agree if the questions are written to elicit a particular answer.

Originally posted by afdave

OK Glenn--

Way too many simultaneous topics here <Prepares self for joke from Glenn about how my wee brain can't handle simultaneous topics>. Let's do one at a time ... Now ... I'm happy to address your burrowing Egyptian mammals and your Cave Dwelling Pterodactyls and whatever else you want to throw at me, but I think you haven't answered this particular item very well.

You say my logic is bad, but you miss the point that it's not MY logic that's at issue here. I'm just the guy pointing out the study to you. If you want to fault someone for bad logic, fault the researchers, who, I would assume, you trust a wee (I know you like that word) bit more than you trust me. So what you have here is two scientists writing in the Journal of Paleontology giving you--Glenn Morton, Torch Bearer for OEC's Everywhere--two choices ...

Door A: The preponderance of evidence favors the hypothesis that the structures are escape burrows of animals that had colonized, or were concentrated in, the lag and were suddenly buried by the deposition of the massive sand.

Door B: ... several characteristics of the structures and the enclosing sediments indicate that they may be completely inorganic in origin.

Got that?

SUDDEN BURIAL BY SAND

OR (notice that this is a common English word which denotes multiple possibilities)

COMPLETELY INORGANIC ORIGIN

Or we could call it "Poison A" and "Poison B" because either one is poisonous to your ideas.

You say that I have not demonstrated that they were in fact buried by a massive sand deposit rather than merely having burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface.

And you are right. There is no need for me to demonstrate this and I couldn't if I wanted to. I'm not a primary researcher and don't want to become one. These researchers cannot demonstrate it either BTW. All we can do is make some educated guesses from the evidence that we have. And one of their guesses is NOT "burrowed into pre-existing material from the surface." Now you can say that if you want to, but you supposedly place a high value on mainstream scientists opinions, so I'm giving you one.

Next, you start in again about these burrows being so rare and what not. Whoa! You don't KNOW that they are rare. The truth is--if you were honest--you would say that they are poorly studied. Saying they are rare is misleading and it's exactly the kind of "wickedness" you were trying to falsely accuse me of. They are probably NOT rare, but obviously I cannot say that for sure and neither can you. Why in the world should they be? Do you have any idea what kind of miniscule infinitesimal fraction of the geologic record AND the top 50 meters of the ocean floor we have studied? It's small. Really, really small, Glenn.

Why am I acting like it's a big deal if it doesn't prove my Global Flood? Here's why. Because you are claiming that burrows are some kind of fatal flaw for YECs, that's why. You claim that there are all these zillions of animal burrows in the geologic record that would make all YEC calculators melt down and so on, but you ignore the point that many of these cotton pickin' things are probably not animal burrows at all!! I've now given you two sources from the literature which support what I am saying here and what do you do? Spit on it and call me "Wee Dave." Classy.

Then you go on and on about how no burrowers could possibly burrow this much if massive sediment got dumped on them. I show you Door A above, which if true, blows your idea away and again, it's "Wee Dave, your logic is bad." Then you misrepresent me where you say "In other words, your wee-boy logic seems to think that 'if they are not' = 'they are not'. And of course, those two phrases are not at all the same." when I made it very clear from the beginning that BOTH of these options are possibilities. Notice the special English word study above just for you.

All this and you have the audacity to say I'M the wicked one who's hiding data.

Respectfully Yours,

Wee Dave

Dave, I realize that you prefer to converse with the 'big guns' - that is, those who could serve some purpose in raising awarenes of your lowly position, but it just seems to me you really lack the ability to connect facts and consequences. Let me point out the obvious:

1) The fact some burrowers can burrow 2 or more meters does not mean all burrowers can.
1a) The fact some buffowers can burrow 2 or more meters does not mean most burrowers can
2) The fact some 'burrows' may have inorganic origin does not mean they all do.
3) The fact burrows may have been misidentified does not mean they all have been.
4) The fact certain kinds of burrowers are poorly studied does not mean they all are.
5) The fact burrowers were poorly studied 30 years ago does not mean they still are poorly studied (if indeed they were then)

I simply can not comprehend how you can even begin to think that any of the above is true. How you can even begin to think you have addressed the issue of the lack of a YEC explanation for burrows.

You don't have to explain a couple of burrows dave - you have to explain why ALL KNOWN BURROWS are distrubted as they are throughout the geologic column.

See, the OE position explains ALL KNOWN BURROWS. It explains the ones that are escape burrows because sometimes catastrophes occur that result in them. It also explains the ones that are not escape burrows, because there has been a lot of time for seafloors to come and go and preserve layer on layer of peaceful, nomal burrows - full of a lifetime of crap. And it explains why there are orders of magnitude more burrows that could possibly have been produced by the number of burrowers alive on the planet at any particular season or year - vigorously digging to escaped the flood or not. Why? because there have been millions upon millions of generations of burrowers alive on this planet over eons of time, leaving huge numbers of burrows to testify of their existance.

See, the YEC position can't explain those things. And that is what Glenn is saying. And you have not explained these things either. You have only found anomalous instances and incorrectly generalized them to cover all other cases - something one simply CAN NOT DO. Dave - you can't do this. Anomalous data points are not the norm. Why? Well, because they are anomalous:

a·nom·a·ly /əˈnɒməli/
–noun, plural -lies.
1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.

Surely somewhere along the way someone tried to explain this to you before ...


Jim

Originally posted by grmorton
[SNIP]
...Unless you were able to handle multiple issues simulataneously, your success would be more Forrest Gump-like than ability based.
[/SNIP]

And much like Forrest, Dave has been publicly baring his buttocks

Jim--

Dave, I realize that you prefer to converse with the 'big guns'

I don't necessarily like to converse with the 'big guns.' It is more important to me to converse with people who are honest, respectful of other's positions and who know the subject matter well. Glenn seems more interested in criticizing YECs for things they are not guilty of, ignoring data, pushing his point of view in spite of the evidence to the contrary and being generally rude and arrogant. Not my cup of tea. I think it's time to ignore him for a while and focus on someone else who gives some indication of wanting to deal honestly. Maybe that's you. I'll respond to your points as soon as I can. Hopefully tomorrow morning.

Dave

Originally posted by afdave

Jim--I don't necessarily like to converse with the 'big guns.' It is more important to me to converse with people who are honest, respectful of other's positions and who know the subject matter well.

So why should anyone want to converse with you Hawkins when you yourself are none of those things?

Glenn seems more interested in criticizing YECs for things they are not guilty of, ignoring data, pushing his point of view in spite of the evidence to the contrary and being generally rude and arrogant.

Can anyone say PROJECTION? Of course you can!

Not my cup of tea. I think it's time to ignore him for a while and focus on someone else who gives some indication of wanting to deal honestly. Maybe that's you. I'll respond to your points as soon as I can. Hopefully tomorrow morning.

So Dave, what will you do when oxmixmudd asks you AGAIN to explain the HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING issue? Ignore it and run cowardly away AGAIN too?

SHOW US THE SCIENCE DAVE, not your bare cheeks as they rapidly vanish in the distance.

- T

Originally posted by afdave

It is more important to me to converse with people who are honest, respectful of other's positions and who know the subject matter well.

Given this, I simply don't see where you have room to criticize Glenn for doing the same. Had you shown yourself honest, respectful of other's positions and one who knows the subject well, I don't doubt you'd have received a far different reception. You are none of these.

As demonstrated above, you have portrayed a millimeter's cover as equivalent to burying under tons of sediment. This was not honest. You have publicly called for Glenn to acknowledge writing that he does not believe answers the burrows problem. This is disrespectful of his position. You are notably ignorant of the subject matter, at one point in this conversation even mistaking land and marine burrowers.

Glenn seems more interested in criticizing YECs for things they are not guilty of, ignoring data, pushing his point of view in spite of the evidence to the contrary and being generally rude and arrogant. Not my cup of tea.

You are guilty of all of these things, as has been demonstrated throughout this thread. Frankly, Dave, this is rank hypocrisy, unworthy of any respect. Many have pointed this out to you here, both christian and non-christian, yet you continue to ignore these criticisms and carry on without change. How is this not arrogance?

I think it's time to ignore him for a while ...

You choose to ignore him, just at the point he has answered your questions with the stated understanding that you would answer his in turn. Oh, Dave. This is cowardly.

As ever, Jesse