Amazing Testimony of a former leading Creation Scientist

Micaiah · Sep 27, 2004

Here are some comments from a website posted by Glenn:

Burrows and burrowing throughout the geologic column are a great challenge to the young-earth paradigm. If there was a global flood which laid down all the rocks in a one year period, then there should be little time for burrowing animals to burrow. and they should become fewer and fewer the higher up one goes in the rock record. This is because the animals should have been killed and buried down deep and they should not have lived to burrow in the later stages of the flood.

There are also burrows found in hundreds of feet of oil well cores. It is almost impossible to account for lots and lots of burrows during a global flood when the average sedimentation rate for a 1 year flood MUST be of the order of 50-100 feet per day (2-4 feet per hour). The burrowing animals simply don't move that rapidly. They would be rapidly buried and then killed.

We have now seen core with burrows extending over 843 feet of sediment in a single vertical oil well. How do the YECs explain this? What is one to say about a global flood when one sees nearly 1000 feet of continuously burrowed section just like what you see here? And why don't YEC leaders tell their followers about it?

YECs have not addressed the burrow problem. I have shown lots of burrows over the past few months. How do you have animals burrow 2-4 feet per hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 4 weeks per month, for a year without rest? Since these marine animals had to live outside of the ark, in the water where they were being buried, how did they survive the flood? This isn't a case of merely believe.

These and other comments indicate to me he has a problem understanding how all these burrows could be formed in the time frame after the flood. Your comments may have been another argument, but lets take one at a time.

I repeat my questions to Glenn, and you, who now seems to have assumed the role of Glenn's spokesman:

Okay, tell us what you believe the rate to be and why you consider that a reasonable rate.

In addition to that you can tell us the expected life span of the worms, and how many offspring they typically produce during their life.

Given that you consider the evidence to be impossible to reconcile with the creation account, you must have some insight into these parameters.

notto · Sep 27, 2004

Micaiah said:
Here are some comments from a website posted by Glenn:

These and other comments indicate to me he has a problem understanding how all these burrows could be formed in the time frame after the flood. Your comments may have been another argument, but lets take one at a time.

I repeat my questions to Glenn, and you, who now seems to have assumed the role of Glenn's spokesman:

The points from Glenns website answer your question. The rates needed to explain the burrows happening during a flood are unreasonable. No worms can do what is being suggested by the flood model.

"How do you have animals burrow 2-4 feet per hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 4 weeks per month, for a year without rest?"

Micaiah · Sep 27, 2004

Okay, tell us what you believe the rate to be and why you consider that a reasonable rate.

In addition to that you can tell us the expected life span of the worms, and how many offspring they typically produce during their life.

Given that you consider the evidence to be impossible to reconcile with the creation account, you must have some insight into these parameters.

My questions again. You ( and Glenn) assert it could not have happened. One assumes that you understand and have values for all the parameters involved. Please provide them. If you are unable to do so, I'll have to assume that your argument is not trust worthy.

The evidence we do have is a lot of holes in the ground. No one was there after the flood to see first hand what happened, what kind of worms (if they were in fact worms) were present, how many, how fast they dug holes, how big they were, how much dirt was depeoited where and in how long etc, etc. YEC's and TE's both provide explanations for how and when those holes in the ground formed. Those stories are not evidence. They are conclusions from the evidence.

notto · Sep 27, 2004

Micaiah said:
My questions again. You ( and Glenn) assert it could not have happened. One assumes that you understand and have values for all the parameters involved. Please provide them. If you are unable to do so, I'll have to assume that your argument is not trust worthy.

The evidence we do have is a lot of holes in the ground. No one was there after the flood to see first hand what happened, what kind of worms (if they were in fact worms) were present, how many, how fast they dug holes, how big they were, how much dirt was depeoited where and in how long etc, etc. YEC's and TE's both provide explanations for how and when those holes in the ground formed. Those stories are not evidence. They are conclusions from the evidence.

So does this mean that in the flood model the burrows were dug after the flood? Does this mean that they were buried under all of the sediment above them and still continued to dig?

Again, the rate isn't as important as the timeframe in which they were layed. No worms can continue to dig through hundreds of feet of sediment when they are buried by hundreds of feet of sediment.

As Glenn pointed out, the burrows were dug in solid rock near the surface. As Glenn has also pointed out, YEC's have NOT addressed or provided an explanation. What is the YEC explanation for these worm burrows. Please be specific. When was the sediment layed down? When was it turned to rock? How did the worms get to this rock to begin burrowing?

I guess they could have been super worms that defy any known limits of animal burrowing that we are aware of and were able to continue to burrow without a source of oxygen and without being killed by hundreds of feet of sediment and rock being on top of them, but I don't think that is a very credible explanation. Your explanation lacks credibility because it doesn't conform with what is known as reality.

Do you think that worms could dig through solid rock at a rate of a few feet per day?

Micaiah · Sep 27, 2004

So does this mean that in the flood model the burrows were dug after the flood? Does this mean that they were buried under all of the sediment above them and still continued to dig?

Are you saying that is impossible. How far could these worms dig down and survive. You apparently know. Add that to the list of questions yet unanswered.

notto · Sep 27, 2004

Micaiah said:
Are you saying that is impossible. How far could these worms dig down and survive. You apparently know. Add that to the list of questions yet unanswered.

But the thing is, we don't see signs that they burrowed down. They are just there, in between layers of supposed flood sediment. They didn't dig down from the top of the whole sediment (hundreds of feet) and they didn't dig up from below (again, more sediment). The are just there so our conclusion must be that they were put there by the flood if the flood model is legitimate. The problem with that is that they would have to be placed into solid rock by the flood. The material they were digging through was solid (otherwise there would not be burrows).

What placed these worm on (or in) the solid rock hundreds of feet below the surface? If they did the digging after the flood, how did they get ther AFTER the material was turned to rock?

There is no logical way to place the worms, the rock, and their burrows in a flood model.

Micaiah · Sep 27, 2004

Here are my previous questions still unanswered.

1. What type of worms are we talking about? What is their size?
2. What was the burrowing rate of the worms?
3. What is their expected life span?
4. How many offspring did they typically produce during their life?
5. How deep could they burrow?

Given that you consider the evidence to be impossible to reconcile with the plain teaching of Scripture about the flood, you must have some insight into these parameters. I would like you to quantify those parameters, and provide the evidence you base those numbers on. Until you can produce those numbers and the evidence, we should rightly be sceptical of your claims that those holes could never have been produced in the YEC timeframe.

It is becoming increasingly obvious you do not have answers to the above questions Notto. Rather than trying to answer those questions, you are tring to change the topic. We shall have to wait for Glenn. As stated above, we can deal with the other issues later.

I previously stated in post 61

These and other comments indicate to me he has a problem understanding how all these burrows could be formed in the time frame after the flood. Your comments may have been another argument, but lets take one at a time.

You agreed in post 62. My quetions relate to claims that the rate of burrowing was too slow for it to have happened within the YEC time frame.

grmorton · Sep 27, 2004

notto said:
I think you are missing the point of the evidence.

[excellent stuff snipped]

Glenn points out in another response that creationists will never consistently identify which layers are pre and post flood. There responses when dealing with things like the Grand Canyon (which shows signs of life such as burrows throughout the column) are ad-hoc based on each specific piece of evidence in isolation (usually with a handwave), yet never explaining all of it consistently.

How do you explain the burrows in a flood model. Please be specific as when the material was turned to rock, how the animals got to the layer, and how the material above and below the layer was put in place.

This hits the nail on the head! There is no cogent and coherent view of the geologic column from the YECs. Everything is explained by ignoring everything else in the universe. Then the next thing is explained by ignoring the previous explanation and everything else in the universe. That means that each explanation is a total island unto itself.

notto · Sep 27, 2004

There is also a shifting of burden of proof going on. It is not up to us to show that superworms could dig through feet of rock while being cut off from a supply of oxygen and covered by hundreds of feet of mud. It is up to creationists to address what is there and show that superworms could did through feet of rock while being cut off from a suppy of oxygen and covered by hundreds of feet of mud. Of course we could start with creationists addressing just how the rock got there in the first place if the rock in these layers was laid down by the flood as mud and silt.

The mainstream view of geology explains this. There is no explanation from the creationist flood model.

grmorton · Sep 27, 2004

Micaiah said:
Here are some comments from a website posted by Glenn:

These and other comments indicate to me he has a problem understanding how all these burrows could be formed in the time frame after the flood. Your comments may have been another argument, but lets take one at a time.

I repeat my questions to Glenn, and you, who now seems to have assumed the role of Glenn's spokesman:

I repeat my question to you, which I asked first. When do you think the flood ended? What geologic age represents the onset and what geologic age represents the termination of the flood? Answer this and I will discuss rates of burrowing. Remember I aske you first.

grmorton · Sep 27, 2004

Micaiah said:
Here are my previous questions still unanswered.

1. What type of worms are we talking about? What is their size?

Variable
2. What was the burrowing rate of the worms?
variable

3. What is their expected life span?
variable

4. How many offspring did they typically produce during their life?
variable

5. How deep could they burrow?
less than 4 feet. Remember in an hour of the flood, between 2 and 4 feet were deposited.

Now answer my question. what geologic age represents the onset of the flood and what geologic age represents the end of the flood?

You don't have an answer for that do you? Without that, you are spitting into a strong breeze.

Micaiah · Sep 28, 2004

Could you provide an explanation of how yopu know the worm was limited to less than 4 ft. What kind of worm was this.

To answer your question, I do not know whether the locations in question formed before the flood, after the flood, or during the flood.

grmorton · Sep 28, 2004

Micaiah said:
Could you provide an explanation of how yopu know the worm was limited to less than 4 ft. What kind of worm was this.

To answer your question, I do not know whether the locations in question formed before the flood, after the flood, or during the flood.

It is not just worms. You need to get that concept out of your mind. It is all sorts of animals. The four feet is a limit which will catch 95% of all burrowing by small creatures. That is not to say that there are none which will dig deeper. Termites are known to dig quite deep to get water. But they are somewhat exceptional. Attached is a cicada burrow. this is not the sort of animal which would dig a burrow in the middle of the flood because they have a long life cycle and could conceivably have not even been active when the flood destroyed the world. They come out ever 13 years of so.

The first pic is a cicada burrow. It is about a foot deep, at least what is seen in the record. How do we know it is a cicada burrow? Because it looks just like the ones which are made today, and in some of them evidence of cicadas can be found--like cicada poo.

the second pic is a termite nest which is at least 2 feet deep.

the third pic are some burrows (about a foot deep) found in the deepwater Difunta group from northern Mexico.

The question for you is what were termites doing digging nests in the middle of the flood? What were cicadas doing digging holes in the middle of the flood. Given that you admit that you don't know where the beginning or end of the flood strata is, you can't possibly say categorically that these burrows are post flood. If you do, then over half of the geologic column is post flood and thus deposited slowly. When exactly do you believe the flood happened? How long ago?

adam149 · Sep 29, 2004

grmorton said:
There aren't many yecs because the data doesn't support that position. I too have to make my living and do research on my own time. I have managed to look at most areas of import to the creation\evolution issue. so such excuses, are, just excuses.

Naturally, that is your opinion, as obfusificative as it is. What I said remains true. You've merely bought into the skeptical party line.

grmorton said:
this is a Jurassic trail. That means it is in the middle of the geologic column. Do you propose that the Jurassic strata to the present strata is not from the flood? Or do you propose that the Cambrian through Jurassic isn't deposited by the flood? Which is it?

The geologic column has no place in the "creation/diluvial paradigm" (as Woodmorappe is oft found to say). I disagree very strongly with those creationists who try to shove the geologic column into the creationist paradigm. In the mind of those creationists who agree with me, such as Carl Frode Jr. and John K. Reed, the geologic column bears no impact (or should not) on creationist thinking.

According to the Column, all Jurassic sediments were deposited at one period and outcrops were later exposed due to deroofing such as erosion or uplift, etc. Thus any rock identifiable to the Jurassic period were laid down, as you say, in the middle of the geologic column.

However, the creationist, freed from such assumptions, posits that surface sedimentary rocks have been exposed since relatively early after the flood (within a couple hundred years likely), when the sediments were still crystallizing, where a crab could have left a trail, turtles could have left trails and coprolites. These features could also originate from regional or local catastrophes, depending on conditions. Until skeptics recognize this and stop trying to apply the flood to the uniformatarian paradigm, they will continue to seriously misunderstand the creationist's position.

I propose that rocks exposed to the surface have been subjected to surface processes and shaping while rocks that are not exposed have not.

grmorton said:
Think about this. The flood would have had to deposit over 30,000 feet of sediment. That means it had to erode 30,000 feet of sediment from somewhere else. Since all the rocks past the uppermost Precambrian are fossiliferous, where did the flood start and where did it end? That is something that YECs never seem to answer. so what is your opinion?

Firstly, I should point out that creationsts have answered this. They have given several answers, which is a good and profitable debate in science.

I hold to Walt Brown's flood model (barring his thesis on mamoths and comets which I am uncertain about at this time). That should give you everything you should need to know what my position is. Most sedimentary rocks were flood deposited, with those exposed to the surface shaped and effected by local and regional post-flood catastrophe as post-flood lakes burst and flowed over the landscape.

grmorton said:
And what you are ignoring is that those events didn't deposit 30,000 feet of sediment. Thus they can't be due to the flood.

That's what I was telling you. If you thought I was arguing that those things occured during the flood, you seriously misunderstood what I was saying. My point was, if you will look at it in context, was that these events drastically reshaped the surface rocks and in the cases of the carving of the Grand Canyon, Bosporus and Dardanelles straits those flood-rocks below.

grmorton said:
P.s. I know places where there are 75,000 feet of sediment.

And you point is what, other than the fact that the flood laid down 75,000 feet of sediment?

grmorton said:
It is silly to raise things like luminous gems and talk of them as he does unless he thinks it will influence someone to believe that they actually happened. Most science books don't raise the possibility of leprechauns, Faeries or Banshees because the authors don't think there is that proverbial snowball's chance that they exist.

But this is nonsense. You are equivocating "luminous gems" (notice that Woodmorappe names specifics which could be checked and gives references, which you continually ignore) with leprechauns and faeries. And what you describe ("magic jewels") is similar. But what you describe is not what Woodmorappe was arguing.

grmorton said:
he could have avoided my barbs by being more scientific than he is. surely you don't think that magical rocks which brightened and dimmed diurnally were on the ark do you?

Again you misrepresent! Woodmorappe never mentions the fact that they would have brightened and dimmed. That is entirely a statement of von Wellnitz based on an apocryphal account of the flood. When Woodmorappe cites von Wellnitz, he is not saying, "hey, go read this, I agree with every last word," but rather he mentions apocryphal accounts of the flood in which they are mentioned and thus cites the origin of his information. If by citing sources an author was required to agree with every last statement in every last one, we could never write anything! Now that we have clarified I will ask you a simple question: Will you continue to propogate false information about Woodmorappe or will you retract the claim?

grmorton said:
On this we agree. and that is why it is important for YEC authors not to give credence to things like magical jewels or geocentrism.

And I completely agree. No one has given credence to magical jewels (except possibly von Wellritz who was merely giving them credence as far as, yes, they are mentioned in an apocryphal account of the flood), and most YECs do not give credence to geocentrism. It takes only as much effort as searching AiG's website for the word "geocentirism" or looking at their Q&A page on the topic to know that.

grmorton said:
No, the author is telling people where to get more information, not "I am not responsible for what I wrote", which is what you are trying to say Woodmorappe is. If he didn't want to be barbequed for this, he shouldn't have raised the issue without saying plainly that he thinks it is a bunch of crock. He just said he couldn't comment on them.

I specifically stated that "if the source is wrong, the author is as well, but s/he is wrong because of their information." I was not trying to make excuses for anything Woodmorappe wrote. Sources are cited in order to show the reader where your information came from so that they may check them or get more information. It is also a nod to the originator of the ideas. Anything else is plagerism, because the author is claiming to have come up with specific information himself. Consult any "handbook for scholarly writing" and it will tell you that.

grmorton said:
If I understand you correctly, it sound like you are saying that magical jewels are a possibility. Why not simply say God provided the light miraculously rather than doing and saying such nonsense?

You do not understand correctly. I don't believe in "magical jewels" anymore than I believe the earth is flat or we evolved. I believe that what Woodmorappe was saying is certainly a possibility (however unlikely), not the nonsense you accuse him of believing.

All this avoids the question of why you present the "magic jewel" argument as if it was the only lighting system Woodmorappe discussed. Are they too plausible for your liking?

grmorton · Sep 29, 2004

adam149 said:
Naturally, that is your opinion, as obfusificative as it is. What I said remains true. You've merely bought into the skeptical party line.

No, I decided that I was not being honest when I was a YEC. I knew the data didn't support my position, yet I argued for YEC for 20+ years. I finally had to acknowledge that God wouldn't approve of me doing that.

The geologic column has no place in the "creation/diluvial paradigm" (as Woodmorappe is oft found to say). I disagree very strongly with those creationists who try to shove the geologic column into the creationist paradigm. In the mind of those creationists who agree with me, such as Carl Frode Jr. and John K. Reed, the geologic column bears no impact (or should not) on creationist thinking.

They can say it all they want, but it is no more true than saying "pigs can fly" over and over. While it isn't 100% true over the world, there are extremely widespread lithosomes which are found in a consistent order. These lithosomes contain the same or similar fossils around the world. Ager writes:

[box]"Perhaps all that it is safe to say in this context is that very commonly around the world one finds an unfossiliferous quartzite conformably below fossiliferous lower cambrian and unconformably above a great variety of precambrian rocks. This is true wherever one sees the base of the Cambrian in Britain, it is true in east Greenland, it is true in the Canadian Rockies and it is true in South Australia. In fact, it is even more remarkable than this, in that it is not only the quartzite, but the whole of the deepening succession that tends to turn up almost everywhere; i.e. a basal conglomerate, followed by the orthoquartzite, followed by glauconitic sandstones, followed by marine shales and thin limestones." ~ Derek Ager, The Nature on the Stratigraphical Record, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981), p. 11.[/box]

According to the Column, all Jurassic sediments were deposited at one period and outcrops were later exposed due to deroofing such as erosion or uplift, etc. Thus any rock identifiable to the Jurassic period were laid down, as you say, in the middle of the geologic column.

However, the creationist, freed from such assumptions, posits that surface sedimentary rocks have been exposed since relatively early after the flood (within a couple hundred years likely), when the sediments were still crystallizing, where a crab could have left a trail, turtles could have left trails and coprolites. These features could also originate from regional or local catastrophes, depending on conditions. Until skeptics recognize this and stop trying to apply the flood to the uniformatarian paradigm, they will continue to seriously misunderstand the creationist's position.

This won't be consistent with what YECs always say about fossilization only occurring during the rapid deposition of the flood. Fossils exist in abundance both above and below these Jurassic (indeed within the Jurassic) beds. And the beds can be traced for very long distances which means that these widespread beds can be used to mark the same place in the depositional record. (it is time to start repeating "pigs can fly" over and over). This is from an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly

[box]
Above all of the deposits mentioned heretofore, are the Lower Mississippian limestones. These limestones contain innumerable crinoids, marine animals known as lilies. This author calculated that just one of these crinoidal limestones (the Mission Canyon of Wyoming) contained enough dead crinoids to cover the entire surface of the earth to a depth of eight centimeters (see Appendix). The Mission Canyon limestone, part of the Madison Formation, covers parts of Idaho, most of Wyoming and Montana and parts of North and South Dakota.

However, similar limestones containing primarily crinoids of Lower Mississippian age, are found in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky.

Similar crinoidal limestones are also found in Britain, Belgium, and the Urals, European Russia, Central Asia, Egypt, Australia, and Libya. They are found in Canada, and Alaska. Thus we see a major, almost worldwide, deposit of limestone which has zones of nothing more than smashed and broken crinoids. The most amazing fact about these limestones which go under different names in all these localities has yet to be mentioned. Many of these limestones show evidence of erosion at the top, form cliffs due to their low erodibility, are overlain by redbeds and are stained red at the top of the formation. This is true in Alaska, Canada, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona (where the limestone is named the Redwall because of the stain), and Britain. In Belgium and Russia no mention was made of staining but the Belgium case shows the erosion and both are overlain by redbeds. In Belgium 24 Iguanodon skeletons were found in an erosional sinkhole in the limestone. Similar Lower Mississippian rocks are found in Kashmir.

In addition to all these similarities one finds much chert associated with these rocks. Without even mentioning index fossils can anyone reasonably doubt that these rocks are one huge system of contemporaneous limestones? And yet this rock does contain similar fossils worldwide Glenn Morton, Global, Continental and Regional Sedimentation Systems and Their Implications, Creation Research Society quarterly, 21(1984),:23-33, p. 26-27[/box]

[box]
Above the Jurassic beds lie the Cretaceous strata. They are named for the chalk deposits which occur in this period, creta being the Latin word for chalk. Chalk is not the dominant lithology of this period but most of the worlds chalk deposits do occur in the Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary. In general the lower cretaceous consists of clastic sediments (sands and shales) while the Upper Cretaceous is predominantly carbonate.

Within the clastics of the Cretaceous, the sandstons are more glauconitic than are the sands of any other period. Glauconite, known only to form in marine environments, is a silicate mineral containing potassium. Thus the presence of glauconite is considered to be proof of a marine environment. When it becomes very abundant, the sandstone is known as a greensand due to the color imparted to the deposit by the green glauconite grains.

Greensands are found in Cretaceous deposits of New Jersey (Merchantville member of the Bass River Formation) the Crimea central Asia Argentina northwestern Australia, 1ll the Gault in England: and in oil wells 100 miles east of New Jersey, Greensands are also in Mali, Niger and Chad, southwestern Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Madagascar, and northeastern Australia.

Over the past 14 years the Deep Sea Drilling Project has drilled into the sediments in the ocean basins all over the world. They have discovered the existence of mid-Cretaceous organic rich, black shales in every ocean basin. Cool observes:

Black clays from these various locales are remarkably similar in appearance and character.

These mid-Cretaceous black shales are also found onshore in the Yezo Group on Hokkaido (northern Japan), the Kennicott Formation in Alaska, the Haida in British Columbia, the Horsetown Group in California, as well as in Nigeria, the Alps, the Caribbean Islands, and the southern Andes.

Even though other lithologies outweigh the Upper Cretaceous Chalk, the chalk is very widespread. Chalk is a very special kind of limestone composed of the shells of microscopic animals, the coccoliths. In North America the Upper Cretaceous of the continental interior includes the Greenhorn Limestone, a chalky limestone, and the Niobrara Chalk. Jenkyns notes:

The depositional setting of both the Greenhorn Limestone and the Niobrara Chalk was clearly a large epeiric sea of low relief stretching northsouth across the continent of North America. At times of maximum transgression, when pelagic oozes were being laid down, the seaway was some 5,000 km long and some 1,400 km wide.

To the south of this huge chalk deposit lies the Austin Chalk which is in the same position as the Niobrara. The Austin Chalk extends from northern Texas to northern Mexico where it is known as the San Felipe Formation. In England are the white cliffs of Dover which are in the identical stratigraphical position as the Austin Chalk. The Dover Chalk is found in Ireland, England, France, Germany, Poland, Scandinavia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Israel and Georgia in the Soviet Union. The Gingin Chalk in the Perth Basin Australia is in the same position, as is the Issek-djal area of Russia.

One of the most interesting deposits of the Cretaceous is the Hippurite limestones. This limestone is composed of billions of dead pelecypods (Hippurites). Geikie says of these:

These Hippurite limestones sweep across the center of Europe and along both sides of the Mediterranean basin into Asia, forming one of the most distinctive landmarks for the Cretaceous system.

and further:

The Hippurite limestone of southeastern Europe is prolonged into Asia Minor, and occupies vast areas of Persia. It has been detected here from ther among the Himalaya Mountains in fragmentary outliers.

Glenn Morton, Global, Continental and Regional Sedimentation Systems and Their Implications, Creation Research Society quarterly, 21(1984),:23-33, p.29-31[/box]

I propose that rocks exposed to the surface have been subjected to surface processes and shaping while rocks that are not exposed have not.

Won't work. The burrows I showed you on one of my pages (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm) are from oil wells and were never exposed. Please explain that.

Firstly, I should point out that creationsts have answered this. They have given several answers, which is a good and profitable debate in science.

No they haven't. You have acknowledged that you don't know when the flood started and when it ended. Thus you don't know how much sediment is deposited by the flood. And if you are thinking of Woodmorappe's 200 mile thick geologic column, no one thinks that is what the column is--never did. That 200 mile figure is merely adding up the thickest layers from each age from anywhere in the world. To claim that this is the true geologic column is similar to saying that the total yearly snowfall is calculated by adding up the thickest snowfalls from all over the world i.e. adding the thickest snow on Dec 1, from Kansas to the thickest snowfall in Siberia from Dec. 2 etc. That number is meaningless.

I hold to Walt Brown's flood model (barring his thesis on mamoths and comets which I am uncertain about at this time). That should give you everything you should need to know what my position is. Most sedimentary rocks were flood deposited, with those exposed to the surface shaped and effected by local and regional post-flood catastrophe as post-flood lakes burst and flowed over the landscape.

You know, I used to be on the list Walt had on the internet. When I posted

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

he shut the list down. He has claimed that overthrusts dont' exist and can't be formed. They can. He is wrong.

And you point is what, other than the fact that the flood laid down 75,000 feet of sediment?

My point is: "How deep do you think the animal could burrow with 8.5 feet per hour of sediment falling on your head?"

Again you misrepresent! Woodmorappe never mentions the fact that they would have brightened and dimmed.

The source Woodmorappe got this crazy idea from says that! If you find it crazy that the lights would brighten and dim, wouldn't that make you a bit suspicious of citing a guy who claimed that and thus giving credence to what the guy says?

That is entirely a statement of von Wellnitz based on an apocryphal account of the flood. When Woodmorappe cites von Wellnitz, he is not saying, "hey, go read this, I agree with every last word," but rather he mentions apocryphal accounts of the flood in which they are mentioned and thus cites the origin of his information. If by citing sources an author was required to agree with every last statement in every last one, we could never write anything! Now that we have clarified I will ask you a simple question: Will you continue to propogate false information about Woodmorappe or will you retract the claim?

Woodmorappe cited von Wellnitz approviingly. I didn't. If he thinks the ideas von Wellnitz is relating are horsehockey, then he shouldn't cite the ideas.

You do not understand correctly. I don't believe in "magical jewels" anymore than I believe the earth is flat or we evolved. I believe that what Woodmorappe was saying is certainly a possibility (however unlikely), not the nonsense you accuse him of believing.

All this avoids the question of why you present the "magic jewel" argument as if it was the only lighting system Woodmorappe discussed. Are they too plausible for your liking?

I cited Woodmorappe. He cited nonsense and now you want him to avoid the consequences of his poor judgment.

Micaiah · Oct 1, 2004

Glenn,

I am finding that as we investigate the evidence a little more deeply, your arguments change direction. How about you go through the photos of holes in dirt, and make your assertions quite clear. For each photo of each column, could you plainly answer the following:

1. What type of creature do you assume dug the hole. How long, and what mean diameter? How big is the hole?
2. What was the maximum depth the creature could dig?
3. How fast could the creature dig?
4. How deep was the mud?
5. Expected lifespan and average number of offspring of each animal?
6. The assumed time frame for deposition of the column of dirt in question?
7. Any rock present. Composition of the rock?
8. How was the rock made?
9. Location and depth of the rock?
10. How does this evidence confirm you assumption of a very old earth?

You asked me when the geological strata was formed. The best I can give you is to say it was within the last 6000 years odd. You are adamant that these holes could not have been produced in the time frame suggested by those who accept the plain teaching of Genesis. I assume that you have made a thorough investigation of the parameters mentioned above, and have some concept of the range of those values in question. You could also provide your scientific references that back up your asserted range.

It is not be hard to do some simple mathematics and demonstrate that the holes could have been produced within the last six thousand odd years. A population explosion, even with a relatively low burrowing speed could hypothetically account for the holes. In fact, it is hard to understand why in the evolutionary time frame there were not a lot more holes. In fact, why the ground wasn't completely churned up.

Rocks are indeed hard to bore through, but rock may not always have been that hard. It could have been like soft clay, and the right chemicals caused a reaction that triggered a hardening of the clay into rock. Maybe the type of rock you are talkng about was not formed in that way, but that is why I ask the above questions.

Remember, this is some of the best evidence you have for your case. I'd expect that you have investigated each of these factors very carefully before you concluded teh historical account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong. The burden of proof rests with you. You and your colleagues are implying that we cannot depend on the record of Scripture because of the physical evidence. Your evidence would need to be very good. It would need to be better than the eyewitness account provided by our Maker.

I'd suggest you have a look at Job's response when the Creator quizzed him about his knowledge of Creation.

rmwilliamsll · Oct 1, 2004

i read the above message just before i left home to go to our church's men's Bible study. All i could think of on the way there was the extraordinary 'arrogance of faith'.

Geology is Glenn's sandbox. If you desire to play in someone else sandbox, you have to learn their rules, to play nicely means to play by their rules. If you want to enter into a conversation about the rules, you have to learn them first, your efforts to understand are needed to earn the right to play there.

The arrogance of faith telling science what it has to do in order to be science reminds me of the tale of mice putting the bell on the cat. Well, the above poster not only claims to have put the bell on the cat of science, but to have grabbed said cat by the b***s and spun the cat around his head in order to be sure that the bell works!!!

Such blatant and foolish arrogance. Don't study geology, but ask geologist to:

1. What type of creature do you assume dug the hole. How long, and what mean diameter? How big is the hole?
2. What was the maximum depth the creature could dig?
3. How fast could the creature dig?
4. How deep was the mud?
5. Expected lifespan and average number of offspring of each animal?
6. The assumed time frame for deposition of the column of dirt in question?
7. Any rock present. Composition of the rock?
8. How was the rock made?
9. Location and depth of the rock?
10. How does this evidence confirm you assumption of a very old earth?

how about spinning those pesky burrowing creatures around your head a few times, just to show them who is boss??

the evidence is there, i am not a geologist, but i can understand the forcefulness of it against a young earth or a universal flood. Yet rather than study to come to grips with the evidence, you wish to spin the cat. (or worse yet tell Glenn to spin)

I hope Glenn answers this message, with charity and clarity. but if he just ignores you i can sympathize and understand. He has dedicated a lifetime of work to the field. and you propose to
tell him how to judge things in his sandbox. sad.

and no, the burden of proof is not on him. it is his sandbox, not yours, not religion's, but geology's. Certainly it belongs to God, but you have to understand what God has done by actually studying what He has done, not by armchair speculations about how you expect God to have acted.

(if you think this is strongly worded, i've calmed way down in the last couple of hours *grin*)

everyone has a right to their opinion.
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework.
----Pastor Hugh Braum.

grmorton · Oct 1, 2004

Micaiah said:
Glenn,

I am finding that as we investigate the evidence a little more deeply, your arguments change direction. How about you go through the photos of holes in dirt, and make your assertions quite clear. For each photo of each column, could you plainly answer the following:

1. What type of creature do you assume dug the hole. How long, and what mean diameter? How big is the hole?
2. What was the maximum depth the creature could dig?
3. How fast could the creature dig?
4. How deep was the mud?
5. Expected lifespan and average number of offspring of each animal?
6. The assumed time frame for deposition of the column of dirt in question?
7. Any rock present. Composition of the rock?
8. How was the rock made?
9. Location and depth of the rock?
10. How does this evidence confirm you assumption of a very old earth?

I don't think all that work is necessary to answer the question before us. How rapidly do animals burrow. The ancient, extinct animals are not that different from what we can observe today. Most animals which have been measured in marine settings, which I could find show that they move about 1 cm/minute.

Holothurians have been observed to move at 1.66 cm per second
see
Ian R. Hudson Benjamin D. Wigham, Paul A. Tyler, Ther Feeding behavior of a deep-sea Holothurian Stichopus tremulus (gunnerus) based on in situ observations and experiments using a Remotely Operated Vehicle, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 2003 in press.

One article which studied how long it took for horizontally burrowing marine worms to re-inhabit an area which was killed off by cockle harvesting machines. The animals moved at 1 cm/minute and it took 100 days for some species to re-inhabit the area.

P.N. Ferns, D.M. Rostron* and H.Y. Siman, "Effects of mechanical cockle harvesting on intertidal communities" Journal of Applied Ecology Volume 37 Issue 3 Page 464 - June 2000

They say:
Molluscs that bury more deeply, eg Macoma balthica, are capable of much more limited movement, although the latter species can and does
burrow horizontally through the sediment at rates of about 1 cm min

Interestingly, earthworms take 5000-7000 minutes (almost 4 days) to burrow down to 30 cm depth.

Some of the core photos I have on my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm have 20 or more centimeters burrow length. The first picture, of a spiral burrow I collected on a mountain in northern Mexico. It is about 20 centimeters high but the burrow path, since it spirals, makes the actual burrow 70 centimeters long. At the rate of 2 centemetres per minute, this burrow, at a minimum would have taken half an hour to dig down, but then the animal also dug back up as can be seen from the part of the burrow towards the rock hammer. So, there is at least 1 hour of activity seen here.

The second pic on that web site, the horizontal burrows on the fence post is 14 inches wide and thus the burrow lengths here represent at least half an hour.

This is from my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/haymond.htm

"Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repetitious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87.
A famous outcrop of the Haymond is seen below from Earl F. McBride, "Sedimentary Petrology and History of the Haymond Formation (Pennsylvanian), Marathon Basin, Texas," Bureau of Economic Geology, Report on Investigations 57, 1966, Plate 3a. It shows the highly laminated nature of the flysch facies and the clean separation of the sands and the shales.

The sands are described by McBride:

Quartz is the most abundant framework constituent in all sandstones; it ranges from 57 to 80 percent and averages 67 percent. Earle F. McBride, Sedimentary Petrology and History of the Haymond Formation (Pennsylvanian), Marathon Basin, Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas, Report of Investigations57, (March 1966), p.31

Young-earth creationists must be able to explain why the sediment changed from 67% pure sand to nearly pure shale 15,000 times during the flood year. (This deposit could only represent about a months worth of time in the flood. There are 15,000 feet of strata in this area.)

...
Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sisyphus only had to roll the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to deserve this young-earth fate?
---end of quote from my web page

Now, the Haymond exposures are 45 miles long by 35 miles wide. This is about 5000 square miles. Remember those marine worms which could burrow at only 1 cm/minute? What you are asking us to believe is that 157 times per day, the area could be buried by a landslide of sand and that the worms would be able to come in from outside of that area and dig burrows? Give me a break. This is why one doesn't have to do all the work you want in order to know that YEC is false.

You asked me when the geological strata was formed. The best I can give you is to say it was within the last 6000 years odd.

I think you misunderstand (or I miscommunicated). I want to know what rock layer marks the start of the flood and which rock layer marks the end of the flood. I already quoted from my 1984 article on global, regional and continental sedimentation which shows that these lithosomes are deposited widely and they mark one event in the geologic column. So, tell me where is the flood in the geologic column?

You are adamant that these holes could not have been produced in the time frame suggested by those who accept the plain teaching of Genesis. I assume that you have made a thorough investigation of the parameters mentioned above, and have some concept of the range of those values in question. You could also provide your scientific references that back up your asserted range.

Darn right I am adamant. Take the Newark strata. This is what it has. Notice the fact that dinosaur tracks are interspersed with lacustrine (lake) deposits. And think about the fact that when an animal makes a footrprint, the water can't be deeper then the his body length! When it says clamshrimp, it means clamshrimp burrows

Preakness.Basalt

Feltville.Fm.(20.m.thick).......

.........................................................roots

.........................................................Pollen

.........................................................plants

.........................................................pollen

.........................................................fish,.plants

.........................................................footprints,.pollen,.roots

Orange.Mountain.Basalt

Passaic.Fm.(15.m.thick).

.........................................................roots

.........................................................roots

.........................................................roots

.........................................................roots

.........................................................plants,.pollen

.........................................................footprints,.Dinosaur.bones

.........................................................roots

.........................................................roots

Lockatong.Fm.(4.m.thick).

..........................................................Dinosaur.footprints

.........................................................fish,.clamshrimps

.........................................................fish.scales

.........................................................fish,.clamshrimps

.........................................................reptile.bones,.articulated.reptiles

.........................................................clam.shrimp

.........................................................fish.scales,.clamshrimps

.........................................................fish,.clamshrimps

.........................................................articulated.reptiles,.plants,.clamshrimps

.........................................................Dinosaur.footprints

Stockton.Fm.

..........................................................insects,.arthropod.burrows

.Vertical.succession.of.fossils.in.the.Newark.Group

Paul.E..Olsen,."Triassic.and.Jurassic.Formations.of.the.Newark.Basin,".in.Warren.Manspeizer,.editor,.NY.State.Geol..Assoc..Guidebook,.1980,.p..18.

It is not be hard to do some simple mathematics and demonstrate that the holes could have been produced within the last six thousand odd years.

Then do it for the 1300 m, 15,000 layer Haymond formation. Show me the math, to paraphrase a recent movie.

Rocks are indeed hard to bore through, but rock may not always have been that hard. It could have been like soft clay, and the right chemicals caused a reaction that triggered a hardening of the clay into rock. Maybe the type of rock you are talkng about was not formed in that way, but that is why I ask the above questions.

There are burrows and borings in SHELLS. Shells are always hard. There are animals that only live on HARD rock. So your soft sediment borings won't explain these things.

Remember, this is some of the best evidence you have for your case. I'd expect that you have investigated each of these factors very carefully before you concluded teh historical account of Creation given in Genesis is wrong. The burden of proof rests with you. You and your colleagues are implying that we cannot depend on the record of Scripture because of the physical evidence. Your evidence would need to be very good. It would need to be better than the eyewitness account provided by our Maker.

I'd suggest you have a look at Job's response when the Creator quizzed him about his knowledge of Creation.

Don't kid yourself about this being the best evidence for my case. It is powerful evidence, that is true, but there is so much evidence against YEC it is hard to choose the best.

Vance · Oct 1, 2004

Well, Micaiah, you asked for it.

grmorton · Oct 1, 2004

Vance said:
Well, Micaiah, you asked for it.

I thought I would add a problem here for the YEC position. Let's take that spiral burrow I have on my web page (mentioned in my previous post and which now proudly resides on my bookcase at work). Say the animal begins to dig down at the rate of 2 cm/minute(a fast rate). If the flood had to deposit 35,000 feet of sediment(a quite common value for the thickness of the geologic column), then each hour throughout the flood year, 4 feet of sediment must be deposited. During the critter's trip down, 2.33 feet of sediment was deposited on top of the ocean floor as it was when the poor fellow began. One his way back up, a similar 2.33 feet would be deposited. But now, when the critter reaches the old ocean floor, instead of finding the ocean floor, he finds that he is now 4.66 feet (142 centimeters). below the current ocean bottom. So he starts burrowing up further to reach the ocean floor. So he starts digging going straight up and not spiraling (this wouldn't happen but I do this for literary effect thinking that the poor fellow is now desperate to get to the ocean bottom). It will take 71 minutes to get to the ocean floor. But during that time, 4.73 feet (144 centimeters) will be on top of him. No matter how long he digs, he can't reach the ocean surface. Eventually he dies from lack of oxygen and the pressure of lots and lots of dirt on top of him. May he rest in peace.

So Micaiah, show me the math. you say is so easy to show, proving that all these burrows could be deposited in a one year global flood.

Amazing Testimony of a former leading Creation Scientist

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

avid reader

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency