Originally posted by afdave

Hold on just a minute, Jim. I realize that there are many many papers out there on ichnofossils presumed by people like Glenn to be burrows. I'm not interested in those. This is speculation as we have seen.

"We" have seen nothing but your stubborness and denial of reality, dave. The ONE example you offer to justify your "speculations" is an abnormal structure, that bears little resmblance to normal burrows. The rest is just hot air.

What I'm interested in is papers on real live burrowers. Ones that burrow in the sea floor sediment. How many of these papers do you think there are? Shall we look?

Yes dave, let's look.



From Google Scholar:

"Benthic"- 406,000 articles

"Marine Benthic"- 149,000 articles

"Deep Sea Benthic"- 66,600 articles

"Benthos"- 79,200 articles

"Marine Benthos"- 35,200 articles

"Deep Sea Benthos"- 20,700 articles


Will that be all, dave?



...But, of course you will completely ignore this post, even though it responds directly (and completely blows away) your challenge.

Or rather, because it does that.

That's how honest you are.

Oh and dave, In case you shift arguments and try to say "I'm not asking whether they are well-studied, I'm just asking how many they are"... Here you go:

Deep-Sea Species Richness: Regional and Local Diversity Estimates from Quantitative Bottom Samples

The deep-sea communities of the continental slope and rise off the eastern coast of the United States have a remarkably high diversity-measured regionally or locally either as species richness or as the evenness of relative abundance among species. In a 1,500-2,500-m depth range off New Jersey and Delaware, 233 30 x 30-cm samples contained 798 species in 171 families and 14 phyla. Addition of stations from sites to the north and south approximately doubled the number of samples and doubled the number of species to 1,597. Species-area curves do not level off within stations or when stations are added together. Moreover, the proportion of species represented by single individuals is high at all scales of sampling, which indicates that much more sampling is needed to adequately represent the species richness either locally or regionally. Diversity changes very little through time at a single site or with distance along a 180-km transect at a depth of 2,100 m. Diversity is maintained by a combination of biogenic microhabitat heterogeneity in a system with few barriers to dispersal, disturbance created by feeding activities of larger animals, and food resources divided into patches of a few square meters to square centimeters initiated by specific temporally separated events.

Orbital forcing of deep-sea benthic species diversity

Explanations for the temporal and spatial patterns of species biodiversity focus on stability–time1–3, disturbance–mosaic (biogenie microhabitat heterogeneity)4,5 and competition–predation (biotic interactions)6,7 hypotheses. The stability–time hypothesis holds that high species diversity in the deep sea and in the tropics reflects long-term climatic stability3

Global-scale latitudinal patterns of species diversity in the deep-sea benthos

LATITUDINAL gradients of species diversity are ubiquitous features of terrestrial and coastal marine biotas, and they have inspired the development of theoretical ecology1–3. Since the discovery of high species diversity in the deep-sea benthos4, much has been learned about local5,6and regional7–9patterns of diversity. Variation in diversity on larger scales remains poorly described. Latitudinal gradients of diversity were unexpected because it was assumed that the environmental gradients that cause large-scale patterns in surface environments could not affect communities living at great depths10. Here we report that deep-sea bivalves, gastropods and isopods show clear latitudinal diversity gradients in the North Atlantic, and strong interregional variation in the South Atlantic. Many seemingly incompatible mechanisms have been proposed to explain deep-sea species diversity11. The existence of regular global patterns suggests that these mechanisms operate at different spatial and temporal scales.

Also:

Community Structure in the Deep-Sea Benthos

(I can't bother to type the whole thing, read it yourself).

And that's just from the FIRST PAGE of hits in Scholar, dave. Whaddaya know.

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

You are kidding - right? Lets see, fossil burrow lined with fossil fecal matter is not a burrow???



?

Do you have a point?

YEC's don't have to explain existing burrows being formed today. They aren't the ones that are the problem. They have to explain the ones that exist in the geological column - the ones that were formed before/during/after supposed global flood. Are you trying to say no-one is qualified to identify fossil burrows because present day burrows aren't well understood? (If so, you'd be wrong).

Now explain something to me. You spent a good deal of time in this thread trying to make a case for the borrows in the geological column being formed by very fast digging burrowers that could make long burrows under duress and who tunneled until they ran out of food and oxygen trying to get above the hundreds of feet of sediement being deposited daily. You also fussed a lot at Glenn for the logic he tried to use to show that it simpy is not possible for all the burrowers that would have had to have been alive to make all the known burrows to exist in the average 1 meter of sediment(for them to all be alive at one time prior to the flood). These are all arguments that try to show these burrows could have been formed by living burrowers during the flood - argumentation which implicitly accepts these fossil burrows are indeed burrows.

Now are you trying to say none or most of these burrows aren't burrows after all? Good grief man - you are all over the map! So what is it, are they or aren't they borrows. If not, why did you waste everyones time trying to show it is possible they could have formed in the flood? Or is it just shotgun as many possibilities as possible and hope one sticks? Or is it just move to whatever possibility isn't being shown lacking in the current post.?


Jim

Of course the ones with fecal matter are animal burrows. But the ones in Glenn's core sample may not be. What evidence does Glenn have that they are? The reason we need more studies of presently living burrowers is that this would give us a much more educated guess about the number of burrowers that may have lived prior to the Flood. Are you aware of many such studies? I am not. And if there are not many, then I am correct in saying that the shrimp study is not anomalous. It cannot be anomalous unless there is quite a bit of data to compare it to. How do you know that the top 10 meters of ocean floor is not literally crawling with zillions of burrowers? You don't know this and I don't know this and Glenn doesn't know this. Therefore Glenn cannot say, as he does, "burrowers typically burrow in the top meter only."

If Glenn Morton was honest, he would say "Bottom dwelling burrowers are poorly studied. Approximately one ten zillionth of the ocean floor has been excavated in a search for burrowing organisms. And in this one ten zillionth part of the ocean floor, we have found these cool shrimp that burrow as deep as 11 meters, maybe much deeper and we've found some other organisms that burrow much shallower than this."

Then he would be accurately representing the situation.

You can't read, can you dave? :)

Please respond to that post. It is dishonest of you to repeat an already refuted claim, and ignore the rebuttal provided.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by afdave

Of course the ones with fecal matter are animal burrows. But the ones in Glenn's core sample may not be. What evidence does Glenn have that they are? The reason we need more studies of presently living burrowers is that this would give us a much more educated guess about the number of burrowers that may have lived prior to the Flood. Are you aware of many such studies? I am not. And if there are not many, then I am correct in saying that the shrimp study is not anomalous. It cannot be anomalous unless there is quite a bit of data to compare it to. How do you know that the top 10 meters of ocean floor is not literally crawling with zillions of burrowers? You don't know this and I don't know this and Glenn doesn't know this. Therefore Glenn cannot say, as he does, "burrowers typically burrow in the top meter only."

If Glenn Morton was honest, he would say "Bottom dwelling burrowers are poorly studied. Approximately one ten zillionth of the ocean floor has been excavated in a search for burrowing organisms. And in this one ten zillionth part of the ocean floor, we have found these cool shrimp that burrow as deep as 11 meters, maybe much deeper and we've found some other organisms that burrow much shallower than this."

Then he would be accurately representing the situation.

New Year's coming Dave. here's a list of resolutions you should make:

I, Dave Hawkins, resolve to stop embarrassing Christians with my dishonest behavior on C/E boards.

I, Dave Hawkins, resolve to stop cherry-picking data that agrees with me, and stop ignoring the 99.9% that doesn't.

I, Dave Hawkins, resolve to stop misrepresenting and lying about evidence that others have presented.

I, Dave Hawkins, resolve to stop the dishonest practice of quote-mining.

I, Dave Hawkins, resolve to stop making weak excuses and changing the subject when my arguments are defeated fairly .

Try it Dave. It's the only way you're going to get right with Jesus after all the wicked things you've done against the spirit of his Word.

Oh and Dave, what about HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING?

- T

Originally posted by afdave
Of course the ones with fecal matter are animal burrows. But the ones in Glenn's core sample may not be. What evidence does Glenn have that they are? The reason we need more studies of presently living burrowers is that this would give us a much more educated guess about the number of burrowers that may have lived prior to the Flood. Are you aware of many such studies? I am not. And if there are not many, then I am correct in saying that the shrimp study is not anomalous. It cannot be anomalous unless there is quite a bit of data to compare it to. How do you know that the top 10 meters of ocean floor is not literally crawling with zillions of burrowers? You don't know this and I don't know this and Glenn doesn't know this. Therefore Glenn cannot say, as he does, "burrowers typically burrow in the top meter only."

Of course there could always be a network of alien cities in the top 10 meters of the ocean floor occupied by zillions of tiny space invaders. Nobody has checked to make sure this isn't the case. You don't know whether or not they are acually there. Nobody does.

Dave you are speculating without a shred of evidence here. In fact, such speculation can only be maintainedby willfully ignoring the evidence such as that provided by Faid in the posts just above yours.

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

You are kidding - right? Lets see, fossil burrow lined with fossil fecal matter is not a burrow???

Below is another picture of an ophiomorpha burrow, taken by a friend on the Book Cliffs of Utah. you can see the impressions of where the feces used to be on the burrow wall. AfDave can't explain this.

YEC's don't have to explain existing burrows being formed today. They aren't the ones that are the problem. They have to explain the ones that exist in the geological column - the ones that were formed before/during/after supposed global flood. Are you trying to say no-one is qualified to identify fossil burrows because present day burrows aren't well understood? (If so, you'd be wrong).

The second set of burrows are mammal burrows. YOu can see the interconnection of the burrow system. Wonder why the mammals weren't trying to escape the flood? AfDave can't explain this either. And putting my questions and pictures on ignore just shows how incompetent he is to actually explain the data.

Hey Dave, what about airbreathing dinosaur burrows? How does that work in your flood?

Perhaps the feces-lined burrows resulted when the burrowers had the poop literally scared out of them as they vainly tried to burrow their way to safety.

Originally posted by afdave

Of course the ones with fecal matter are animal burrows. But the ones in Glenn's core sample may not be. What evidence does Glenn have that they are? The reason we need more studies of presently living burrowers is that this would give us a much more educated guess about the number of burrowers that may have lived prior to the Flood.

Don't confuse and conflate YOUR need for more study with other's need for more study. You clearly do need more study. Many who are confronting you here don't because they, unlike you have actually studied the area. By your own admission upfront you knew nothing about burrows when you came here 1 month ago. But now you want everyone to act as if you are some sort of expert. Don't you think that indicates the size of your ego?

Are you aware of many such studies? I am not.

Why should someone who has not studied an anrea be aware of such studies? And when people here point them out to you, you ignore them. What a sad, sad pathetic little man you are.

And if there are not many, then I am correct in saying that the shrimp study is not anomalous. It cannot be anomalous unless there is quite a bit of data to compare it to. How do you know that the top 10 meters of ocean floor is not literally crawling with zillions of burrowers?

They are called BOX CORES, and DROP CORES, wee dave. Something you don't know anything about because you haven't studied the area. YOUR need for more study shines through here. For those who don't know, one can drop a pipe at a high speed into the ocean bottom and then pull it back up. The mud comes up with the pipe. One can then look for burrows in the sediment.

You don't know this and I don't know this and Glenn doesn't know this. Therefore Glenn cannot say, as he does, "burrowers typically burrow in the top meter only."

Sorry, DAve, you are the only one who doesn't know. The rest of us do.

If Glenn Morton was honest, he would say "Bottom dwelling burrowers are poorly studied. Approximately one ten zillionth of the ocean floor has been excavated in a search for burrowing organisms. And in this one ten zillionth part of the ocean floor, we have found these cool shrimp that burrow as deep as 11 meters, maybe much deeper and we've found some other organisms that burrow much shallower than this."

Dave, had you ever heard of a drop core before today? You haven't mentioned them before so I think the answer is that you haven't.

Then he would be accurately representing the situation.

No, then I would be lying because I would be saying something I know to be false.

Originally posted by afdave

Of course the ones with fecal matter are animal burrows.

Ok - good. So now we have established that there are animal burrows in the geological column. Now you as a YEC must come up with a way of explaining why these burrows exist at all levels in the geologic column when you propose this column was laid down by a global flood depositing hundreds of feet per day. It really doesn't matter how many 'real' burrows there are, if there are 'real' burrows in the column, then you have to explain how they got there during a flood event. This becomes even more the case when it is clear these burrows are not escape burrows but rather the typical burrows representative of the live cycle of the organism which created it and are preserved in a complete, undisturbed, surrounding environment

But the ones in Glenn's core sample may not be.

Glenn being the professional geologist(geophysicist) and you the amatuer, I would presume he is more qualified to identify the burrows than you. The fact some formation thought to be a burrow turned out not to be does not mean there is any question about the burrows Glenn has presented. For you to build you case on the possibility the burrows Glenn has presented might not be burrows is weak to say the least - and likely exposes your ignorance to anyone looking at what Glenn has presented and more competent than you to evaluate if they are indeed burrows. You don't seem to know your own limitations.

What evidence does Glenn have that they are?

Uh - perhaps the fecal matter that is in them, or the particular structure they present? Why don't you ask him to explain why he is confident they are burrows instead of building a case on the possibility he is mistaken? There are quite a few geologists viewing this thread. None of them seem to think Glenn has misidentified a burrow. Perhaps that is because Glenn is right, and they are actually burrows! So far, you don't have much of a case.

The reason we need more studies of presently living burrowers is that this would give us a much more educated guess about the number of burrowers that may have lived prior to the Flood. Are you aware of many such studies?

Now this is a curious thing. Faid has linked you to raw counts of studies in the thousands of these creatures (here). Why have you ignored this and continued to proclaim that little to nothing is known about the environments of this creatures? And he has provided you with a few links from these lists to give you an idea of the kind of material discussed in the listed studies(here). One talks of how many benthic critters there are in certain sections of sea bottom, so obviously people are studying and counting these guys, and they do have a pretty good idea of how many there are per square unit, and how deep they tend to live. Do you think that if you continue to proclaim we know nothing that I will simply accept what you are saying is true? I don't think so. It appears to me quite a bit is known about these creatures, at least enough to know if it is likely they would form normal looking burrows as hundreds of feet per day of sediment was being dropped on top of them.

I am not. And if there are not many, then I am correct in saying that the shrimp study is not anomalous.

It is clear there are quite a few, which means your shimp is anomalous. Such a precarious case you a making! Surely you have a better case than this one to support your contention burrowers do not present a problem for YEC? I mean, the fact Dave Hawkins is not aware of the thousands of studies that place this shimps behaviour in a context is hardly going to be an overwhelming argument we need to re-evaluate the possibility there was a global flood! It is not even sufficient to make me doubt burrowers present a problem for YECS. Indeed, I still see a whole host of problems presented to the global flood hypothesis by the presence of fossil borrows in the geologic column. Not the least of which is the fact many (if not most) of these fossil burrows show a typical environment for the burrowers as they are preserved, not a massive catastrophic burial

It cannot be anomalous unless there is quite a bit of data to compare it to. How do you know that the top 10 meters of ocean floor is not literally crawling with zillions of burrowers?

Well - I would say that the cores taken and examined simply don't show the top 10 meters of ocean floor literally crawling with zillions of burrowers. However, I am not sure this is what you want anyway. What you need is to show that burrowers can and do dig lots and lots of normal looking burrows as they are being buried by hundreds of feet of sediment per day.

I also hate to point this out, but the rather pervasive nature of burrowers in the sea bottom and the rather pervasive nature of fossil burrows throughout the geological column is 100% consistent with millions even billions of years of history where the fossil burrows represent numerous different seafloors all stacked on top of each other over deep time, and incredibly inconsistent with the idea all these layers of sediment were deposited in 1 years time in a global flood. And it doesn't take a professional geologist to figure this out.

You don't know this and I don't know this and Glenn doesn't know this. Therefore Glenn cannot say, as he does, "burrowers typically burrow in the top meter only."

If Glenn Morton was honest, he would say "Bottom dwelling burrowers are poorly studied. Approximately one ten zillionth of the ocean floor has been excavated in a search for burrowing organisms. And in this one ten zillionth part of the ocean floor, we have found these cool shrimp that burrow as deep as 11 meters, maybe much deeper and we've found some other organisms that burrow much shallower than this."

Then he would be accurately representing the situation.

Let;s review: You are assuming that burrowers do not present a problem for the YEC model based on

1) A study of an anomalous burrowing shrimp and the hope that someday, somewhere, we can establish such behavriour is in fact normal in spite of the fact that in the thousands on thousands of studies done to date it appears in fact to be abnomal.

2) The hope that a successful geophysicist with decades of field experience has misidentified every fossil burrow he has used in this thread to support his contention fossil burrows present a problem for the YEC global flood hypothesis and the hope that all observing geologists are mum about the fact he has misdentified them.

3) The hope that the majority of the fossil burrows identified in the literature to date are in fact misidentified and are not real fossil burrows

4) The hope that those fossil burrows that are in fact fossil burrows are in reality not normal burrows as they appear to be, but escape burrows dug by those burrowers lucky enough to have survived the gauntlet of suspended debris in this massively turbid flood environment.

5) the hope that after finding the abnormal shrimp are normal, that when really, really scared, they poop a lot and dig frantically through not 10's of meters but hundreds, even thousands of meters of sedment before expiring?

Dave - are you really trying to tell me that this case is sufficient to have 'addressed' Glenn Morton's contention burrowers present a problem for the YEC flood hypothesis? And that because Glenn doesn't take this 'case' you have presented seriously that he is somehow disengenuous in his stance?


Jim

Here is another non-escape burrow from the Permian. Note the bifurcation downwards. The tripartate nature of this burrow means that it had to be excavated over a period of time, which is something we don't have in the meters per hour depositional rate of Wee Dave's global flood.
For scale, the 'red leaf is about an inch across. Below the fossil is my carpet.

Originally posted by Faid

"We" have seen nothing but your stubborness and denial of reality, dave. The ONE example you offer to justify your "speculations" is an abnormal structure, that bears little resmblance to normal burrows. The rest is just hot air.



Yes dave, let's look.



From Google Scholar:

"Benthic"- 406,000 articles

"Marine Benthic"- 149,000 articles

"Deep Sea Benthic"- 66,600 articles

"Benthos"- 79,200 articles

"Marine Benthos"- 35,200 articles

"Deep Sea Benthos"- 20,700 articles


Will that be all, dave?



...But, of course you will completely ignore this post, even though it responds directly (and completely blows away) your challenge.

Or rather, because it does that.

That's how honest you are.

That's an awesome resource. I should look at the other options on Google more. Thank you Faid.

74,992 feet to go---------

==================
Glenn,

1. If you accept the 8 foot burrower for purposes of argument only, doesn't that still leave 74,992 feet for our heroic shrimp to finish burrowing out of ? You now, its pretty hard to climb Mt Everest, and its only 29,028 ft high. This is almost 3 Everests.

2. Isn't this just a subset of a larger insoluble problem that is ignored by the YECs : the volume of sediment , carbon, etc. deposited worldwide has built up to many times the current amount on the earth's surface would you not agree ? I think I read somewhere that in just the limestone alone there is not enough Calcium etc availble in the oceans to make it, and /or the heat of formation (if it were to all be formed during the flood) would boil the oceans etc.

--------------------------------------------
Glenn, if you can comment on the above, super, thanks. Appreciate all the neat stuff you have posted.
=================
For AFdave:

1. How about the those 74992 feet to be burrowed near New Orleans? Do the shrimp get a rest break ? Must not be union shrimp, for sure.
2. Where did all the sand and lime, now stone, come from ? Ah, the back lot at Creation R Us. Just like in Hollywood. We're living on a movie set.


Jim

Originally posted by gallileo

74,992 feet to go---------

==================
Glenn,

1. If you accept the 8 foot burrower for purposes of argument only, doesn't that still leave 74,992 feet for our heroic shrimp to finish burrowing out of ? You now, its pretty hard to climb Mt Everest, and its only 29,028 ft high. This is almost 3 Everests.

That is a fantastic point. I wish I had said it that way. Have some pearls. I can see the headline: Supershrimp climb 3 Everests!

2. Isn't this just a subset of a larger insoluble problem that is ignored by the YECs : the volume of sediment , carbon, etc. deposited worldwide has built up to many times the current amount on the earth's surface would you not agree ? I think I read somewhere that in just the limestone alone there is not enough Calcium etc availble in the oceans to make it, and /or the heat of formation (if it were to all be formed during the flood) would boil the oceans etc.

Absolutely. There are too many burrows, too many dead animals, too much organic carbon in the geologic column, too much volume of rock, too much volcanic ash etc for it all to be caused by one geologic catastrophe occurring to one pre-flood biosphere.

and all layered in so many different ways in so many different places and with different degrees of erosion.

Hi Jim-- Links from Faid don't cut it. If you are going to disagree with a 2005 study that says that burrowers are poorly studied, you need to demonstrate that they are NOT poorly studied. A good starting point would be a single study about deep sea burrowers and their burrowing habits. Let's take 1 at a time, OK? Over to you.