Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: every hole's a goal

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 - DaveGodfrey

1
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Nope.

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.
Dave that surface rupturing is basically the same as volcanoes on the earth. Nothing to do with your idiot fludde. Nowhere near the scale you're talking about, and that subsurface ocean is not the same as the "fountains of the deep" you insist once existed. They're the equivalent of the mantle.

But as you know nothing about geology or planetary science you don't seem able to grasp this.
Shut up and read.

Especially the NY Times article I posted.
Venus' resurfacing is not like that of the Earth Dave. There's no plate tectonics there. There is plate tectonics on Earth. And its lava that's coming out not water on Venus. Whereas on the outer moons which is what I was explicitly talking about its water because the moons are mostly made of ice, not rock.
Read the fucking article. You still haven't read it.
I did moron. It doesn't help you.
2
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Nope.

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.
Dave that surface rupturing is basically the same as volcanoes on the earth. Nothing to do with your idiot fludde. Nowhere near the scale you're talking about, and that subsurface ocean is not the same as the "fountains of the deep" you insist once existed. They're the equivalent of the mantle.

But as you know nothing about geology or planetary science you don't seem able to grasp this.
Shut up and read.

Especially the NY Times article I posted.
Venus' resurfacing is not like that of the Earth Dave. There's no plate tectonics there. There is plate tectonics on Earth. And its lava that's coming out not water on Venus. Whereas on the outer moons which is what I was explicitly talking about its water because the moons are mostly made of ice, not rock.
3
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Nope.

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.
Dave that surface rupturing is basically the same as volcanoes on the earth. Nothing to do with your idiot fludde. Nowhere near the scale you're talking about, and that subsurface ocean is not the same as the "fountains of the deep" you insist once existed. They're the equivalent of the mantle.

But as you know nothing about geology or planetary science you don't seem able to grasp this.
4
What is the evidence of "catastrophic bursting of waters on other bodies in the solar system"?  
Cryovulcanism where bodies are warm enough deep under their crusts so that instead of molten rock forming their mantles its water instead. How this un any way applies to Earth I don't know. It's not exactly on anything like the scale Dave needs either, even if you take into account the small size of bodies like Enceladus.
5
No Dave, that's not what I said. Read the words I wrote, not the ones the blind idiot demon in your skull tells you I wrote.

Chunks of the sandstone (and not just sandstones) directly overlying the Precambrian Basement is not Cambrian in age. If Morris is including this in his "Basal Cambrian" map then he is lying.
6
Dave, if there are supposed to be "billionsofdeadthingz" from this fludde, then why aren't they in the sandstones that directly overly the Precambrian Basement?
7
Dave, lots of that sandstone isn't "basal Cambrian". "Basal Cambrian" would be rocks dated to the early Cambrian.

But Morris seems to just be talking about sandstone that directly overlies the Precambrian basement. Much of which isn't Cambrian in age, and even the stuff that is, is of different ages from each other.

Those might well be as widely distributed as Morris claims. But that doesn't make them the same thing as what you're talking about in the case of specific formations. 
8
Peugeot and Citroen don't export cars to the US. Daimler, Volkswagon, and BMW all make about 3x more cars in the US than Germany exports to the US in total. So they wouldn't be affected by Trump's tariffs in that case.

However, Daimler's factory in the US exports to China. So that's them in trouble. And their employees in the US with it.

http://www.dw.com/en/trade-war-fears-mount-as-donald-trump-threatens-eu-with-higher-automobile-tariffs/a-44358542

He's not thought this through that well has he Dave? Dave?
9
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.

Which "basal sandstone". Be specific.

Quote
We agree that it was a single Marine transgression which deposited it.

No we don't. Again. Which "basal sandstone"? Some of those are not actually Cambrian, and even the ones that are vary in age Some are early Cambrian. Some are late Cambrian. They represent different transgressions and different stages within a transgression.

Quote
We just disagree on how long it took.

That's all.

No. Its not.
10
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.
Based on what evidence?

Oh, forgot, you have none.

Quote
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.
I.e. you have no clue how big, thick, or flat.

This may help:


There's a third basin next to Other Basin, you've got a nice dividing line along the edge, And depending on what the undersea topography was like you could probably divide "Basin" into several more. Especially if your sandstone was coming in from multiple sources along that coastline.
11
Now we've been talking about how all these various provincial sandstones have all these different names and Godfrey is telling his tall tale about "basins" lol ...

But tell me ... if what you see in that third picture lasted 10 million years or more ...

HOW THE HELL

Are all these sandstones NOT a single enormous unit.

???

The whole friggin area is under friggin water for frigging 10 million years!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
They are NOT separate.  They are connected.  And anyway at most there's two basins.  Which are connected.  Not 10 or 12 as one would think from all the different names given to the same frigging sandstone! 
No Dave, they aren't connected. There's an entire continent separating them.
No there is not. Look at the third picture again.

The brown bit is the continent Dave. Just because there's a bit of coastal sea round the bottom of it does not make them "connected" in the way you think they should be. This is because you don't understand the basics of sedimentology. Looking at that map I can see at least three basins, and maybe more. Two on the left hand side of that continent dividing the two seas, and maybe three on the right.

Quote
Learn some basic geology. Then maybe you'll be worth talking to.
Basic geology is not what is needed. What is needed is basic honesty.  And I don't consider you worth talking to because of your knowledge, but rather because of your need. You are hopelessly confused and blinded and you need someone to straighten you out.

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.

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.

No they don't. Otherwise you would be able to provide a citation that shows they're continuous and form one single unit, rather than several different units that were once thought to be correlated, but aren't necessarily thought to be the case.

Quote
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.

"Probably". Citation motherfucking needed Dave.
12
Now we've been talking about how all these various provincial sandstones have all these different names and Godfrey is telling his tall tale about "basins" lol ...

But tell me ... if what you see in that third picture lasted 10 million years or more ...

HOW THE HELL

Are all these sandstones NOT a single enormous unit.

???

The whole friggin area is under friggin water for frigging 10 million years!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
They are NOT separate.  They are connected.  And anyway at most there's two basins.  Which are connected.  Not 10 or 12 as one would think from all the different names given to the same frigging sandstone! 
No Dave, they aren't connected. There's an entire continent separating them. Learn some basic geology. Then maybe you'll be worth talking to.

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.
13
Now we've been talking about how all these various provincial sandstones have all these different names and Godfrey is telling his tall tale about "basins" lol ...

But tell me ... if what you see in that third picture lasted 10 million years or more ...

HOW THE HELL

Are all these sandstones NOT a single enormous unit.

???

The whole friggin area is under friggin water for frigging 10 million years!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
14
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ...
Says who?
The articles I posted say that they are correlated and that they are stratigraphically equivalent.
Again, that doesn't say that they're deposited in the same basin Dave. Do you know what a depositional basin is? 
15
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ... just given different names by region.
No, it doesn't. It means they're about the same age. It does not mean that they're part of the same basin.
16
Dave, Da Fludde wasn't fucking lava was it? Or is gopher wood made of asbestos?
17
Dave, the subterranean oceans on other solar system bodies are basically their mantles. Nothing like Brown' idiotic model. Venus' resurfacing was with lava. And when pray did that happen?

Random bullshit is not evidence Dave.
18
Was that before or after the fludde Dave?
19


Quote
A map of what the Sahara was like    8,000 to 11,000 years ago . . .
 

Yes ?
And... ?

Adjusted for erroneous Carbon 14 dating assumptions, that's probably more like 4500BC to 2000 BC or so. Come on Vox you know all this by now don't you?
When did da fludde happen Dave? Before or after the sediment showing these patterns were deposited?
20
Nor is "The Sahara" a synonym for "North Africa".
Nor is Persia a synonym for Iran. But it's close enough for our purposes.
No, it isn't.
21
What the fuck are you babbling about Mr "Open up the canopy by 50%"?
22
Numerous problems with Milankovitch mechanism

However, there are numerous problems with the astronomical hypothesis.12-17 These problems continue to plague the hypothesis and have been emphasized in recent articles.

How does the ice age cycle begin?

The most obvious problem is why should the ice age cycle begin about 2.7 Ma when the Milankovitch cycles supposedly have existed for many hundreds of millions of years? Is there an argument here that could be raised regarding changing planetary alignments or solar 'evolution' that might account for this?

The closure of the Panama isthmus and the change it had on global ocean circulation is a pretty obvious one. Orbital mechanics can account for the pattern of glacials and interglacials, but they don't explain how the ice ages start. Note that the glaciation of Antarctica started 33mya, when the Antarctic Circumpolar Current starts up and basically turns Antarctica into a giant freezer.

Oard is an idiot if he thinks this is a "problem" that nobody has thought about.
23
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 
24
Quote
Foley said Wright's research offers "a thought-provoking idea, worthy of more debate and study, but the current body of evidence does not prove the hypothesis."

And they're not talking about the whole Sahara anyway. Are they Dave?
25
Dave, do you think the defendant should be allowed to contact potential witnesses for the prosecution? Can you think why that might be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Al Capone?
I'd be careful here; there isn't anything even close to a general rule precluding pretrial contact with witnesses.
It doesn't need to be a general rule, its just an obvious thing that you'd set as part of bail conditions.
That's what I mean by a general rule - the way you are saying it, bail should always have a rule against contacting witnesses. The general rule probably goes the other way - contact with witnesses, in the form of pretrial interviews, is often rather necessary for a defense. More generally, conditions of bail are supposed to be as lenient as they can be to accomplish whatever goal they have. A rule against contact is very restrictive.

The rule that was broken here wasn't "no contact with witnesses". The rule was "No crimes while on bail."
The defense team can, for obvious reasons. The defendant probably shouldn't, unless they're conducting their own defense. And in a bunch of cases I can see that being a terrible, terrible idea, especially if you think witness tampering is a possibility.