Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Not buying the whole "poor discriminated against atheist" meme

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 - BenTheBiased

1
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it. Should be easy for you since you are so brilliant. Model a land mass with no plants, just bare rock. Then model a transgression of the sea over several million years and see what you get.  I predict you will get nothing remotely resembling a 2 million square mile ultra thin Ultra flat layer of sandstone.

And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
Why do you predict we will get nothing like that? What do you predict we will get instead? On what do you base that prediction?
Because we have eyes and brains. Well at least I do. And we can see what has formed at Ocean margins over the last several thousand years and then we can use our brains to extrapolate that over millions of years. And I'm sorry but in my wildest imagination even holding my nose and squinting my eyes can I possibly imagine forming such a Sandstone layer by normal processes operating today.  Maybe you are smarter than I am and maybe you are better at explaining things, so feel free to try.
What do you predict we would see instead?

ETA: What do you see at "ocean margins"? Because I see a lot of sandy beaches.
2
Pretty sure this video was posted in one of the previous cycles of this tardy-go-round, but for those (Dave) who may need a refresher...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AslbszrbE2g
3
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it. Should be easy for you since you are so brilliant. Model a land mass with no plants, just bare rock. Then model a transgression of the sea over several million years and see what you get.  I predict you will get nothing remotely resembling a 2 million square mile ultra thin Ultra flat layer of sandstone.

And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
Why do you predict we will get nothing like that? What do you predict we will get instead? On what do you base that prediction?
4
So stop dispensing squid ink and schaff and flares and deal with what I've actually posted.

Coward.
What do you think you have posted that anyone has to deal with, let alone being too cowardly to do so? Or are you just projecting your usual :parrot: :ironicat: IKYABWAIs like you always do?
5
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it. Should be easy for you since you are so brilliant. Model a land mass with no plants, just bare rock. Then model a transgression of the sea over several million years and see what you get.  I predict you will get nothing remotely resembling a 2 million square mile ultra thin Ultra flat layer of sandstone.

And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
I wonder what would happen if someone actually did show you a model of sequence stratigraphy. Oh wait, I don't have to wonder!
And here's a nice video that explains things fairly well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uoh6tAI1qg
Wow.  The best "science" anyone could come up with to refute my point is a cheap propaganda video.
:facepalm:

6
And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
That's something we can definitely agree on.
8
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
So you have no idea, just as I predicted. Just like ICR, you simply proclaim, based on no evidence or reasoning, that normal sedimentary processes couldn't produce it. Is anyone shocked?
9
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided". 

He'd never admit that here though. 
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
I love that after all the conversations about varves that have gone on with this group, Dave still can't get his head around material being laid down in thin layers at the bottom of bodies of water.


ETA: Also he's claiming to be a scientist but avoiding asking the questions that would invalidate his theory.  I'm the one who has to point out that there is no sandstone at the bottom of the ocean, and that the sandstone that is there is not as "uniform" as he claims.  Which he will completely ignore.    The only thing he does accept is a cartoon where he just assumes that everywhere where there is not Precambrian, there must be flat, thin, uniform sandstone. 
no I don't assume that. I suspect that. There's a big difference. And the phase I'm in right now is to try to determine what is actually there which is extremely difficult. Especially with all the squid ink from you guys.
Really?  Maybe you just suck at Google.  Because I was able to show you that the Mt Simon Sandstone isn't particularly uniform even over small geographical areas, and that there is no basal sandstone over HUGE area of the planet, while I was having my morning coffee.
Depends on what you mean by uniform.  And also the context. A thickness variation between 100 and 2000 feet could in no way be described as extremely thin, flat and uniform if the areal extent is 1 square mile or 10 square miles or even 100 square miles. 

But we are talking about possibly TWO MILLION square miles in areal extent.

No, it depends on what YOU mean by "uniform".  You are the one making the claim.  We have no clue what you mean.
And why is it supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.
10
this is an interesting diagram but not for the reasons that you think.
Oh boy it's time for intimation! What would a Dave-ocrates thread be without it?
11
It might also be time for a reminder that there are sedimentary layers, including sandstone, in the Pre-Cambrian too...

12
Of course you don't even need to perform any extrapolations. You yourself linked to the models of what actually happened. You can just look at those...
Let's look for a minute at the Geologic Evolution maps linked for me by Mike B a LONG time ago ...

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/nam.html

Late Pre-Cambrian 550MA


Middle Cambrian 510 MA


Late Cambrian 500 MA


Click through the Ordovician maps, and you'll get the extent of the transgression. Click through the Silurian ones and you'll see the regression. Another transgression occurs in the Devonian. Etc.

Notice that none of them ever covers the entire continent. The Canadian Shield is always exposed.
13
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided". 

He'd never admit that here though. 
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
I mean look ... What we have NOW is calm Placid Seas. So we can look at what happens on the margins of these calm Placid Seas and then use our imagination to extrapolate what would happen if this these calm Placid Seas Rose slowly over millions of years. And when I do that I find no place on Earth where you could conceivably do this extrapolation and come up with anything like the Sandstone layer that we find on the Precambrian basement.

But again, I remain open-minded. Convince me with compelling arguments.
Why would you expect conditions now to be the same as they were millions of years ago?

ETA: None of the seas that currently exist are as large as the Sauk Sea, and none of them are in areas completely free of plant life like the Sauk Sea was, but some of them are pretty big and relatively deserty. Many examples have been provided to you in previous discussions: Red Sea, Mediterranean, Bahamas, Gulf of Mexico. You can see sand deposition in all of these places. You can see sea levels changing. Extrapolate to a larger size and longer time, and you have something very much like the Sauk Sea transgressions/regressions. It's not that hard. To not be able to do it, you have to actively want to not do it. Which I think you do.

ETA2: Actually the Mediterranean might be that big, but obviously not as shallow and much of it not as sandy.
14
And the thicknesses that I have seen listed range from 100ft to 2000 ft. Which is incredibly thin if we are talking about a layer which might be thousands of miles in areal extent
Relative to what? What do you think is the normal thickness of a wide layer of sandstone? And why do you think that? Why is this question always invisible to you?
15
In my never-ending quest to get you guys to use your own brains independently instead of submitting to groupthink, let me ask you a question ...

The lamotte sandstone. (Just to pick one which you guys think is of Cambrian age)

Here's a random abstract that says it covers all of Missouri ...
Quote
Abstract
The Lamotte Sandstone, the basal Cambrian sedimentary rock unit continuous throughout Missouri, was investigated as a potential unit for shallow geologic carbon sequestration.  https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/2166/

Do you guys think that this means that it just ends at the borders of Missouri? Or what?
Us guys who base our worldview on observation of the world think sandstone is present where it's observed. You guys who base your worldview on made up stories think it's present where it's not.
16
But Dave still has it muddled.  He's now realised that the St Peter can't have been laid at the same time as either the Tapeats or the LaMotte, but he still wants the Tapeats/LaMotte to be the vast pancake-like extraordinarily thin layer like "a sheet of paper 0.1 millimeters thick measuring 1 kilometer by 0.6 kilometer" even though he misremembered that as the claim about the St Peter.
Well, hilariously, that claim is in both articles...
http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/
Quote
The erosion and resulting unconformity that ended the Sauk Megasequence was totally unlike anything we have ever witnessed, and would actually be wholly impossible today. This erosional episode worked on the recent Sauk deposits and planed them off to a nearly flat, featureless plain. On the entire continent, no mountain remained, for the St. Peter Sandstone covers essentially the entire continent with a sheet of sand roughly three thousand miles by one thousand miles in area, yet less than 300 feet thick! Evidently, even though subsequent erosion has now removed the sandstone in some areas, it was essentially continuous at first, implying there were no high places on the continent that received no sediment. This can be better comprehended by considering a sheet of paper 0.1 millimeters thick measuring 1 kilometer by 0.6 kilometer draped across a surface flattened with extreme care.
http://www.icr.org/article/geological-provincialism/
Quote
Lying above the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon, in succession, are the greenish-colored and iron-rich Bright Angel Shale, and the thin-bedded and silty Muav Limestone. Marine fossils in these rocks include a host of so-called "Cambrian explosion" organisms, most notable of which are the trilobites. In Grand Canyon this succession called the Tonto Group is 800-1,300 feet thick. Tonto Group equivalents, that are also amazingly similar, are found across much of North America and are reported also across wide portions of Canada, Eastern Greenland, Scotland, and South Australia. Such persistence of strata is enough to baffle creationist and evolutionist alike. Picture a sheet of copy paper 0.1 millimeters thick that measures 1 kilometer by 0.6 kilometer, then stack three on top of one another. You then have a picture of how thin these three layers are across the breadth of North America.

And of course the St Peter has nothing like the areal extent on the ICR map, even if you did include the Tapeats and all the other sandstone layers as part of the same formation.

ICR and Dave just lie like rugs.
Yup.
17
ETA: actually I think they want the Sauk to be laid down first by the Flood then eroded, then the St Peter with its mythical extent to be laid down after that.
Yeah, they think each cratonic sequence represents a transgression and regression of the flood waters. It's kinda sorta if you squint what actually happened, except that it's way, way too fast (why didn't each transgression/regression destroy the layers from the previous one, which couldn't possibly have been rock yet?) and with a bunch of extra stuff that clearly didn't happen (e.g., supposedly covering parts of the world where none of these sequences even exist). It's kinda like the super-fast evolution that they also need to have happened! Like I said, taking the observations that actually disprove their made up stories and clumsily trying to shoehorn them into it.
18
Those different names are given to different formations that have different lithologies and were laid down in different places under different conditions, and in many cases at different times.
I know that that is your Alice in Wonderland story. But this is a science forum and we must stick to the evidence. That is, what the rocks actually tell us.
Because Dave trots out this "Alice in Wonderland story" projection every time someone tells him what a scientific theory he doesn't accept says, there's something I think is worth noting here. In a sense, all scientific theories are stories. They are the stories that explain our observations. But there is an important difference between them and fictional (or religious) stories. That difference is that the scientific theories are based on our observations. In other words, they are true stories (or at least as close to true as we can currently get). Fictional (and religious) stories, in contrast, are not based on observation. They are made up.

This, for example, is a made up story...
And what these various Sandstone layers seem to be telling us is that they are all connected. That is, that they are all one sandstone.

Very large in areal extent. Probably something like 2000 miles across and maybe 1500 feet thick on average. And probably a very high degree of flatness as well.
It is not based on observation. It's based this...
http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/
Which itself is a made up story. It has no references to actual research. It pretends to be based on observation by using language stolen from actual scientists, but in reality, it's a clumsy attempt to shoehorn observations into a pre-existing made up story (the Genesis myth).

Actual scientific theories (true stories) do not need to force observations to fit them. They are based on the observations.
Nope.

It's not based on that article. (Lol at the 5 lemmings that liked your incorrect post)

I cannot remember for sure, but I don't believe the Saint Peter Sandstone is classified as Cambrian.

In this thread I'm talking about what you guys call Cambrian sandstones.  If you want a nice article that I'm using as a research outline, Google "ICR geological provincialism William Hoesch"

Come on, Ben. You can do better.
Oh, so you're just going to ignore the whole history of your made up stories about all the sandstone being connected?
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=2546831#post2546831
Quote from: Dave 'It's not based on that article' Hawkins
Here's a nice picture of the St Peter Sandstone ... of which - I think - the Tapeats is a small subunit ... http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/ ... again ... from ICR because I can't find it in any mainstream (aka fairy tale) pubs. Actually, to say the Tapeats is a "subunit" might be misleading ... The "Tapeats" appears not to be a "unit" of anything at all. What we really have is "The St Peter Sandstone" (why did St Peter get the honor?) and what we call "Tapeats" seems to be simply a small area of this visible in the Grand Canyon.
But, really, Dave? Who the fuck do you think cares which made up ICR article you happen to be referring to at any given moment? Do you see any references to actual research in this article either? http://www.icr.org/article/geological-provincialism/
No? So what difference do you think it makes to my point? Seriously, I'm asking, because you're acting like you've made some sort of serious refutation here. Do you actually believe that, or are you just putting on a show because you know I'm right and you have nothing of substance to say in response?
19
Those different names are given to different formations that have different lithologies and were laid down in different places under different conditions, and in many cases at different times.
I know that that is your Alice in Wonderland story. But this is a science forum and we must stick to the evidence. That is, what the rocks actually tell us.
Because Dave trots out this "Alice in Wonderland story" projection every time someone tells him what a scientific theory he doesn't accept says, there's something I think is worth noting here. In a sense, all scientific theories are stories. They are the stories that explain our observations. But there is an important difference between them and fictional (or religious) stories. That difference is that the scientific theories are based on our observations. In other words, they are true stories (or at least as close to true as we can currently get). Fictional (and religious) stories, in contrast, are not based on observation. They are made up.

This, for example, is a made up story...
And what these various Sandstone layers seem to be telling us is that they are all connected. That is, that they are all one sandstone.

Very large in areal extent. Probably something like 2000 miles across and maybe 1500 feet thick on average. And probably a very high degree of flatness as well.
It is not based on observation. It's based this...
http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/
Which itself is a made up story. It has no references to actual research. It pretends to be based on observation by using language stolen from actual scientists, but in reality, it's a clumsy attempt to shoehorn observations into a pre-existing made up story (the Genesis myth).

Actual scientific theories (true stories) do not need to force observations to fit them. They are based on the observations.
20
It's almost as if those maps have some sort of connection to our observations.  :hmm:
21
Never mind for now the impossibility of getting a sandstone like what we actually have in a stupid placid sea over millions of years ... never mind that for now ...
Also, let us know when you're ready to come back to this, since it's the basis of your argument and you've done nothing at all to demonstrate it. You've just ignorantly proclaimed it over and over.

And if you ever get that far, maybe you could also take a stab at demonstrating how a global flood possibly could give us what we actually have. For example, if you think a global flood laid down a uniform thin layer of sandstone everywhere, why are there places like the Canadian Shield with no sandstone at all?
22
Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
Worth repeating.
And once you figure that out, it's also worth asking yourself why none of them show the entire continent under water.
23
Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
Worth repeating.
24
Of course we already know the answers because we've been through this more than once before. Relative to what? A piece of paper. What does that have to do with geology? Nothing. It's just a meaningless analogy an ICR writer came up with to get know-nothings like Dave to go "Wow!"

Why is it significant? Because said ICR writer says normal sedimentation couldn't produce such a formation. Is there any reason to believe him? No, but Dave does anyway.
25
And why is it significant?