Local Flood

[notto]

Thank you for excellent documentation of a typical flood scenario
I didn't see any evidence there about multiple layer beaver burrows but I did see a lot of doubt exist about some of the features. I thought that it was significant that the writer thought that the layers were put down by water and occured through a catastrophic event. I would agree with that despite the fact that it is located in the middle of a continent well above sea level

So, can we assume that the material below them is preflood or were these done post flood. if so, can we then assume that any sediment above them is post flood? How does the flood model explain these burrows, the sediment above them, and the sediment below them? You still assert that the flood model can explain them, yet you fail to directly address this piece of evidence and explain it using the flood model.

Did you miss this picture?

Did you miss these comments?

But even this opinion is not entirely persuasive. This is because the Daemonelix-structures do not all end at a common surface, as would be expected of colonies of burrowing inhabitants living on a steppes, but they overlap vertically within a thickness of at least 40 metres of strata. Even for a another 30 metres below this zone, fillings of smaller hollow structures can be recognised, which were evidently begun, but then prematurely abandoned by their excavators. (figure 69).

The incomplete structures in the lower Daemonelix-levels indicate that the sedimentation proceeded very quickly. The more complete structures in the higher levels show that the rate of sediment inflow became weaker. That the deposition was nevertheless continuous can be concluded from the consistent vertical overlapping of the structures

 

[A4C]

So, can we assume that the material below them is preflood or were these done post flood. if so, can we then assume that any sediment above them is post flood? How does the flood model explain these burrows, the sediment above them, and the sediment below them? You still assert that the flood model can explain them, yet you fail to directly address this piece of evidence and explain it using the flood model.

Did you miss this picture?

Did you miss these comments?

But even this opinion is not entirely persuasive. This is because the Daemonelix-structures do not all end at a common surface, as would be expected of colonies of burrowing inhabitants living on a steppes, but they overlap vertically within a thickness of at least 40 metres of strata. Even for a another 30 metres below this zone, fillings of smaller hollow structures can be recognised, which were evidently begun, but then prematurely abandoned by their excavators. (figure 69).

The incomplete structures in the lower Daemonelix-levels indicate that the sedimentation proceeded very quickly. The more complete structures in the higher levels show that the rate of sediment inflow became weaker. That the deposition was nevertheless continuous can be concluded from the consistent vertical overlapping of the structures

No I didn't miss anything Check back I had not finished my post before you responded As the article says these sediment layers were put down in the one catastrophic event not millions of years in between as you had previously said and I have given an explanation of the burrows as they appear from the diagram

 

[notto]

No I didn't miss anything Check back I had not finished my post before you responded As the article says these sediment layers were put down in the one catastrophic event not millions of years in between as you had previously said and I have given an explanation of the burrows as they appear from the diagram

It does not say anything about a catastrophic event wiping out the beavers. The evidence directly contradicts the sediment layers being laid down by a catastrophic event because there are burrows throughout 40 meters of the sediment that start at different depths within it.

Please show me where the article says these sediments were put down by one catastrophic event that involved the beavers that made the burrows. I've never stated that there are millions of years in between these. What I have stated is that there are trace fossils such as burrows in almost every layer of the geologic column. These trace fossils show us that life went on as normal as the layers were being created. Ther are tree roots, burrows (in layers 40 meters deep), egg nests (in layers 15 feet deep) and other trace fossils in all of the layers that make up the column. This shows us that life was happening and living on the top and near the surface of each of these layers and that they were not laid down at the same time by a single catastrophic flood.

The evidence directly contradicts that scenario and falsifies it.

 

[notto]

Now when it gets onto the corkscew burrows that they say defies explanation let me propose something:
Suppose that there was a very hardy creature that burrowed in damp ground near water . When the global flood arrived and they got carried along and ended up in Dakota hills they might immediatly try to escape the depositing silt eh? Now suppose they did and got carried away only to get swamped again. Would you not then be left with a series of empty burrows crossing over sediment layers
Even your own reseachers admits that it was a catastrophic water event that caused it
Sounds like a big flood to me

So you are suggesting these elaborate burrows with multiple chambers and a consistent corkescrew structure are escape routes? Just when I though your adhoc reasoning couldn't be more hillarious.

(just an FYI - the author of that piece is a creationist. Thanks for noting that even your own researchers think the burrows defy explanation by the flood model. He couldn't explain them either.)

 

[A4C]

It does not say anything about a catastrophic event. The evidence directly contradicts the sediment layers being laid down by a catastrophic event because there are burrows throughout 40 meters of the sediment that start at different depths within it.

Please show me where the article says these sediments were put down by one catastrophi event. I've never stated that there are millions of years in between these. What I have stated is that there are trace fossils such as burrows in almost every layer of the geologic column. These trace fossils show us that life went on as normal as the layers were being created. Ther are tree roots, burrows (in layers 40 meters deep), egg nests (in layers 15 feet deep) and other trace fossils in all of the layers that make up the column. This shows us that life was happening and living on the top and near the surface of each of these layers and that they were not laid down at the same time by a single catastrophic flood.

The evidence directly contradicts that scenario and falsifies it.

OK so here is the relevant paragraph

Several conclusions can be drawn from the fossil content of these sandstone layers: 1. There must have been an abundant fauna of terrestial vertebrates to the west of the Badlands before the beginning of the sedimentation. 2. All the animals were destroyed by a catastrophe. (The carapaces of land turtles occur from all age groups; one skeleton of a Merycoidodon exhibited in the South Dakota School of Mines contains two petrified embryos!) (figures 67 and 68). 3. The cadavers were distributed widely in the alluvial deposits and covered over within a short time. 4. The different types of animals did not all perish simultaneously, but herds were washed away one after another, which is reflected in the vertical sequence of their remains. 5. The vulnerable land animal species became extinct altogether through this catastrophe. (In contrast to this, the alligators as well as the soft shelled and Pseudemyd turtles which are also found in the sediments survive to this day in North America.)

Now if that wording doesn't convince you that all the sedimentation was put down at one time by a flood I dont know what would
So it really does say something about a catastrophic event and further it wouldn't matter if the layer was 100 metres thick it would still contain evidence of certain creatures trying to escape through all of it no doubt. Incidentally the lower levels would be smaller being perhaps when the rate of water was less the animals more active and would be able to escpe quicker. As time went on escape would become more difficult hence the larger burrows

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[notto]

OK so here is the relevant paragraph

Now if that wording doesn't convince you that all the sedimentation was put down at one time by a flood I dont know what would
So it really does say something about a catastrophic event and further it wouldn't matter if the layer was 100 metres thick it would still contain evidence of certain creatures trying to escape through all of it no doubt. Incidentally the lower levels would be smaller being perhaps when the rate of water was less the animals more active and would be able to escpe quicker. As time went on escape would become more difficult hence the larger burrows

Just my 2 cents worth

(The author is a creationist and as you even noticed, he has a hard time explaining the burrows)

How are complex burrows with side shafts and dead end chambers that are all in a complex spiral shape evidence of the creatures trying to escape after they are already buried?

After they escaped, how did these burrows stay in the shape they are if they were dug in newly laid down sediment. Would they just fill right in if they were dug in newly deposited sediment after the beavers dug out?

You asked for evidence of multiple burrows one on top of the other. You have been given it by a creationist source (who can't explain them in a flood model either).

Your explanation again deals with generalities and does not address the specifics of the find (they are not indicitive of escape tunnels), nor does your explanation address the sediment below them (pre flood, right?) or above them (post flood right)?

Can we safely say that you are claiming that the layer that these burrows are in was laid down during the flood and that the burrows were dug by the beavers during the flood in an effort to escape?

Is that what you are claiming? Yes or No.

 

[nvxplorer]

If the Flood occurred, did the fish die? Did some of them die? Did the saltwater fish die? The freshwater fish? Fish that need a specific pH range to survive?

 

[A4C]

So you are suggesting these elaborate burrows with multiple chambers and a consistent corkescrew structure are escape routes? Just when I though your adhoc reasoning couldn't be more hillarious.

(just an FYI - the author of that piece is a creationist. Thanks for noting that even your own researchers think the burrows defy explanation by the flood model. He couldn't explain them either.)

It stands to reason that you had to use a creationist writing to show me something that is obviously evidence of a flood. I can understand that a ToE scientist writing about it would have even more problems trying to reconcile everything.
And this comment rather seals it doesn't it

That the deposition was nevertheless continuous can be concluded from the consistent vertical overlapping of the structures.

 

[notto]

It stands to reason that you had to use a creationist writing to show me something that is obviously evidence of a flood. I can understand that a ToE scientist writing about it would have even more problems trying to reconcile everything.

You have yet to establish how it is evidence of a flood. The burrows as escape tunnels doesn't match what is actually found an only addresses a charactature of the evidence you have constructed. You have not reconciled the actual structure of the burrows or the sediment below them and above them with your model. You fail to explain them in detail.

They author (much like you) tries to fit them in a flood model and simply avoids them.

Your model directly contradicts the creationist who wrote the article.

 

[notto]

And this comment rather seals it doesn't it

Yep, just like the evidence of the 15 feet of dinosaur egg nests. River flooding is common and happens seasonally and animals come back and build new nests on top of old ones and build new burrows on top of old ones.

Completely consistent with what we see today. No flood necessary and completely incompatible with a one time flood scenario. If a flood was responsible, we would not see burrow upon burrow. I don't think we would see burrows at all because they flood would was them out.

How is it that a flood responsible for carving the grand canyon leaves the burrows (or escape tunnels) relatively in tact while washing out everything else?

 

[A4C]

You have yet to establish how it is evidence of a flood. The burrows as escape tunnels doesn't match what is actually found an only addresses a charactature of the evidence you have constructed. You have not reconciled the actual structure of the burrows or the sediment below them and above them with your model. You fail to explain them in detail.

They author (much like you) tries to fit them in a flood model and simply avoids them.

Your model directly contradicts the creationist who wrote the article.

Please give details where it says there are burrows above or below what you have already shown me.
Now if these animals made these type of burrows normally then would you not see them in their habitat prior to the Flood And assuming the "escape" theory is correct would you not expect to see them during the flood period . Now just exactly what do you want me to address?

 

[notto]

Please give details where it says there are burrows above or below what you have already shown me.
Now if these animals made these type of burrows normally then would you not see them in their habitat prior to the Flood And assuming the "escape" heory is correct would you not expect to see them during the flood period . Now just exactly what do you want m to address?

Why are there 40 meters (120 feet) of complex corkescrew burrows one on top of the other, none of them reaching the surface of the sediment in which they are found?

How are the complex burrows with their corkescrew construction, side burrows, and side chambers consistent with an escape tunnel if the animal is burried?

How did the burrows survive in the shape they are in if they were dug in newly laid down sediment (with the beavers inside) that apparently was underwater as the beavers dug out?

Is the sediment under these burrows pre-flood?
Is the sediment above these burrows post-flood?

 

[A4C]

If the Flood occurred, did the fish die? Did some of them die? Did the saltwater fish die? The freshwater fish? Fish that need a specific pH range to survive?

I would suspect that many marine species would be out of their element during a global flood not least would be by murky water. I think the abundance of fish fossils on all layers is testament to that. However I suggest that sufficient resilience has been built in by God that certain species survived, the evience of which is by what we see swimming around today.

 

[notto]

I would suspect that many marine species would be out of their element during a global flood not least would be by murky water. I think the abundance of fish fossils on all layers is testament to that. However I suggest that sufficient resilience has been built in by God that certain species survived, the evience of which is by what we see swimming around today.

All layers? Can you point us to a few of these layers that contain fish fossils? Do the layers above them and below them contain fish fossils as well? What layers are you referring to?

 

[nvxplorer]

I would suspect that many marine species would be out of their element during a global flood not least would be by murky water. I think the abundance of fish fossils on all layers is testament to that. However I suggest that sufficient resilience has been built in by God that certain species survived, the evience of which is by what we see swimming around today.

What resilience? That's the point. Fresh water species do not survive in sea water and vice-versa. Some species are so delicate, that a slight change in temperature or pH level is lethal. If these fish had this resilience you speak of, we'd see hammerhead sharks in Lake Michigan and Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Mediterranean. We do not see these things. A global flood would produce brackish water, killing nearly all fish species. Did Noah have aquariums on his ark? If he did, what were they made of? How did he heat them to support tropical species?

 

[A4C]

Why are there 40 meters (120 feet) of complex corkescrew burrows one on top of the other, none of them reaching the surface of the sediment in which they are found?

How are the complex burrows with their corkescrew construction, side burrows, and side chambers consistent with an escape tunnel if the animal is burried?

How did the burrows survive in the shape they are in if they were dug in newly laid down sediment (with the beavers inside) that apparently was underwater as the beavers dug out?

Is the sediment under these burrows pre-flood?
Is the sediment above these burrows post-flood?

Quite frankly I am beginning to suspect two things of you concerning your questioning
Your intelligence
Your motives
Assuming you are not playing games and for the benefit of lurkers anyway could you get your mind around the fact that the Flood didn't happen overnight.
What you are looking at (the 120 feet of sediment) could have been laid down over a period even up to a year . Now in that scenario wouldnt the "surface" continually be rising and dont the burrow s indicate this.
Now perhaps the side burrows are an indication of the frantic nature an animal might have been in and did something different . It seem like you expect me to have a lot more answers than it is possible to give from just looking at a drawn diagram. But I do appreciate you asking just in case I might be able to add a bit of common sense to the "mystery" which quite frankly appears to be abundantly void.

 

[nvxplorer]

I thought the Flood lasted forty days?

 

[A4C]

I thought the Flood lasted forty days?

The rain lasted forty days

 

[nvxplorer]

The rain lasted forty days

Okay, now would you address my post concerning the fish?

 

[A4C]

Okay, now would you address my post concerning the fish?

I have and refuse to be drawn on endless ramblings