Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRatatouille - A Forum for Food for Thought

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Faid

He can't even bear himself to look at the pictures.
That's different. That was because of what they were, not because of their beliefs and actions. And that is, um, I mean er, it's... Her emails tho!
I will grant you that I don't understand the asteroid orbit thing. But I'd like to take another look.
Which, of course, means that you never will. Second Law.

(Ninja'd by VoxRat)
Speaking of 'complexity'...
You cannot escape the facts that ...

1) "Cambrian" sandstone lies atop "Pre-Cambrian" basement rock in much of N. America
2) This sandstone (whether multiple layers or a single layer) varies in thickness from approx 100 ft to 2000 ft
3) Nothing I've read indicates that there is any definitive demarcation between say the "Lamotte" sandstone and the "Mt. Simon" sandstone.  It's certainly not state lines as Voxrat pointed out.  It's not gremlins with swords.

So that's the data that we have ... the question is ... what do we make of it?
Here's some more data, from the link I gave you and you pretend it doesn't exist:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Get it?

This is JUST lower Mt Simon, dave. Remember Lower Mt Simon? That you were focusing on?


We've read it dave. Years ago.

Guess what's the one word we didn't find?
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Surface rupturing on other solar system bodies appears to be common.  It's a heat release thing.  Therefore we should explore the idea that perhaps this sort of thing might have happened on earth long ago.  If it did, it would explain a lot ... like 2 million square mile super thin, super flat sandstone layers.
...Which don't exist.
Fuck you, Hawkins.
Demonstrate how a single thing I wrote is a "lie" or a "fraud".
See that?
You can't.
So you resort to your childish poo-flinging tantrum.
Same. As. It. Ever. Was.
You are a fraud.  You pretend to be a scientist but you're not interested in science.  Go away and quit spamming the board.

Or else stay but start contributing something positive in the way of science.
See above. Repeating youe insults and slander while refusing to support them makes you even MORE of an asshole, if that's even possible.
Just shut up, Voxrat, you lying fraud.
Attacking and insulting people because you cannot address their points only makes you look more of an asshole, Hawkins.
But keep going.

The more you lie, the more people will see what a fraud you are.

You're not a "doctor" of science.

You're a fraud.
And when the flawed and unsupported narrative is exposed, the ad homs pile up.

As usual.


As usual.
It is really a very simple process:

Morris tells a simple story
This simple story fits well with the way Dave likes the see the world.

Hence we should assume that what he says is true, unless you find clear evidence that it is not. And clear evidence, in the Daveian sense, are things that are also a simple story that fits well with Dave's preconceived notions.

On the other hand, geologists tell a complex story that does not fit with Dave's preconceptions. They can be dismissed if Dave can even *imagine* a reason for them to be wrong: for instance, the mere conceptual possibility of some sort of conspiracy of silence among geologists is enough to consider one likely.

I think that if any of us really wanted to convince Dave, the way to do it is to appeal to his strong sense of superiority, as he is more convinced of it than even his religious beliefs. Praise his "discoveries" and "research" the way you would a seven year old boy, all the while gently steering him towards more complex ideas, while making sure you set him up to succeed every step of the way.

But he would need to develop some redeeming qualities to justify the effort, or else it would just be distasteful.

Morris is actually just trying to be honest with the data.

When you think about it ... it's shocking that no geologist has tried to put together a map like Morris' ... why on earth would we NOT want such a map?  Where is the celebrated curiosity of the scientific community?
So wait. You think Morris gets his unreferenced and uncited data from actual research, but you also think that no one has done something like that before?

Come on, guys ... someone put together some nice global (fairy tale) maps of Geologic Evolution (which I have posted) and they are very helpful to actually understand what the nature of the fairy tale actually is ...

So why not make some nice global maps of ACTUAL SANDSTONE which is ACTUALLY IN THE GROUND (as opposed to our fluffy idea of what happened in the past)

For the Nth time:

I gave you data for ACTUAL SANDSTONE on the ACTUAL GROUND for the lower layer of Mt Simon.

You ignored it all. And you continue to pretend it doesn't exist, even as we speak.

And you have the NERVE to talk about what scientists did or did not produce?

Amazing. Truly amazing.

It's become blindingly obvious to me, Viv, that today's geologists want to create complexity that's not actually there.  This is a very old tactic famously used by the medieval Catholic church to keep people confused and dependent upon the ruling religious class.

Aaaand we're back to "Conspeerasee!"

I'm wondering how long till Dave starts expanding the definition of "sandstone". :D

This whole banter back and forth about Dave's failure to define this "basal sandstone layer" is pretty tedious. However I'm quite interested to see where he goes with this argument.

Therefore, Dave, because I'm interested in seeing where your "argument" goes, I'm going to accept your claims that "continent-sized, super flat, super thin sandstone like the one in N. America which contains the Tapeats Sandstone". exists. It doesn't. Certainly not in the way you imagine, or desire it to exist, but lets pretend it does. This would be the part of the Sauk megasequence, yes?

So what's next?

PS. Don't you dare quote-mine me.
I've already told you where my argument goes.  I've stated from the beginning that IF ... IF ... Morris' map is even close to being correct ... that is, if this sandstone layer really is this flat and this thin and this extensive ...

Then that is highly interesting.

Because NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years.

And you know it.
You continue to rely on disputed premises.

Explain why you think that "NO process operating today that we know of has any chance of being able to produce such a layer - with that kind of areal extent and that degree of thinness and flatness - over millions of years".

"Have you seen sand turn to sandstone" is not an argument.

Neither is "and you know it".

Or "come on, it's obvious".

Or "yer all morans".

You say you're a scientist. ACT like one.
i doubt it will harm his base more than the 'grab-em by the pussy' tape
Oh I think it will. It's a question of the image it conveys to his sexist base. I'm certain many of them liked the Access Hollywood tape; it projected to their minds the image of a strong alpha male getting what he wants from the other, subservient sex. Contrast that with the semiotics of someone watching women pee. Or, even worse, getting peed on.

it might be that it proves the steele dossier to be more legit, but again nothing in there has been proven false yet
That is also a pretty valid reason to keep it hidden. But there's no doubt in my mind that the pee tape would hurt Trump by itself.
Lol, is that what "socrates" is trying to intimate?
You don't work with idiots. You use idiots.


Morris made a map.  He claims it represents Basal Cambrian Sandstone in N. America. 

I have no reason to doubt him ... do you?

Dave, you doubt THOUSANDS of geologists and their work, dismissing anything from papers to introductory youtube videos as "propaganda", for no reason other than that you don't like what they say!

And now you say you have "no reason to doubt" the unreferenced claims of ONE geologist with a CLEAR and STATED AGENDA (see Pingu's posts)! Because, you know, he's a geologist, he knows his stuff, why should we doubt him, all people are honest and sincere until proven otherwise, right?

What COLOSSAL hypocrisy.
For once in your life focus on the fucking data and quit bellyaching about all the extraneous info.
"Focus on the fucking[1] data" he says, right after dismissing lack of cited data with an appeal to questionable authority.

The years have not made you any less of a hypocrite, dave.
Aaaand here's the 'tell'
And it's the fact that John Morris is a geologist so that means there's a pretty good chance that he probably got the information from a reliable source.

It's a "pretty good chance" that his map is right, because he's a geologist? That, coming from YOU?

You really are an idiot if you don't get this.
See above.
Sleep well tonight, dave:

Trump declares NKorea still poses extraordinary threat
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump declared Friday that North Korea still poses an "extraordinary threat" to the United States.

In an executive order, the president extended for one year the so-called "national emergency" with respect to the nuclear-armed nation, re-authorizing economic restrictions against it.

While expected, the declaration comes just nine days after Trump tweeted, "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," following his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

The order appears to undermine the president's claim.
8d pigeon-chess ftw!
You dismiss mainstream geology - with all its references to published science -  is just "guessing".  But you see "no reason to doubt" someone telling you what you want to believe, despite the lack of ANY references.
Worth repeating.

You're in no position to accuse others as frauds, dave.
For reference:
Establishment of shape during embryonic development, and the maintenance of shape against injury or tumorigenesis, requires constant coordination of cell behaviors toward the patterning needs of the host organism. Molecular cell biology and genetics have made great strides in understanding the mechanisms that regulate cell function. However, generalized rational control of shape is still largely beyond our current capabilities. Significant instructive signals function at long range to provide positional information and other cues to regulate organism-wide systems properties like anatomical polarity and size control. Is complex morphogenesis best understood as the emergent property of local cell interactions, or as the outcome of a computational process that is guided by a physically encoded map or template of the final goal state? Here I review recent data and molecular mechanisms relevant to morphogenetic fields: large-scale systems of physical properties that have been proposed to store patterning information during embryogenesis, regenerative repair, and cancer suppression that ultimately controls anatomy. Placing special emphasis on the role of endogenous bioelectric signals as an important component of the morphogenetic field, I speculate on novel approaches for the computational modeling and control of these fields with applications to synthetic biology, regenerative medicine, and evolutionary developmental biology.

It should be clear by now that I am suggesting that it is a process that is guided by a physically encoded [endogenous] map or template of the final goal state.
This guidance causes the map or template to emerge by guiding local cell interactions.
You're not "suggesting" that. You're plagiarizing it.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I WTFed untill I googled:
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
He also skipped Leviticus 11:20. Lol
Are you sure they were beaches?  As in beaches we are familiar with?

No you are not sure at all.

You are just guessing.
IOW, "How do you KNOW sand will turn to sandstone? WERE YOU THEEEEERE?"
I guess any conclusions then on whether there's any Evidence for The Flood will have to wait till Hawkins assembles all the maps of all the basal Cambrian sandstone in North America. Actually in the entire world; we're talking about a The global flood.

At this point the global flood is only a hypothesis. The leading hypothesis with the most promise. But just a hypothesis nonetheless.

Check the data I showed you. Tell me how your "leading" and  "promising" hypothesis accounts for them.
I posted data, pictures and graphs from the lower Mt. Simon dave. I can post a reconstructed map too. But what's the point, if you keep ignoring it all?

Who's the fraud, again?