Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Raven'll do it

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 - VoxRat

1
Not everyone! I count six (6) "Socrates"'s in that conversation!
2
Yes but no!
This is like that classic grammar no-no "I feel badly" as in:
Quote
"I feel badly for Gen. Flynn. I feel very badly. He's led a very strong life, and I feel very badly about it," Trump told reporters Monday as he left the White House
No, you feel bad. "Feeling badly" would mean that your sensory neurons were working inefficiently.  It would be like saying "I look very badly" (because, say, your skin was a preternatural orange hue, or your hair resembled a carefully arranged ferret). No. You look bad.
4
"grisly" is another one (adjective that sounds like an adverb).
Americans are sometimes confused by the British use of "poorly".
5
It's kind of baffling...
Quote
Only three months ago, on the morning after fellow Democrat Phil Murphy captured the governor's office, Sweeney tweeted that the "long-overdue millionaires tax" would be "the first bill we pass in January."  ...
Under Sweeney's leadership, the Legislature passed and put a millionaires tax on former Gov. Chris Christie's desk five times since 2010.
Top Democrat says millionaires tax pushed by Phil Murphy is now 'absolutely last resort'
6
Yes Peez I know. You are like that Junior High kid I told about who was laughing at the joke he didn't understand.
idgi...  In what way is Peez like the kid you so cowardly bullied?

Is that correct grammar in US English?  "cowardly bullied"?  I'm genuinely curious because you are generally nitpickier than me on grammar (and I'm quite nitpicky myself).
Heh... I knew that was going to be an issue.
Yeah, it feels wrong because "cowardly" is generally an adjective.
So one's first instinct might be to go with "cowardlyly".
But one would instantly recoil at that!
The dictionary (which I did indeed consult before I posted that!) allows "cowardly" as an adverb, but mainly as an "archaic" form.
I couldn't find another word that adequately expressed my assessment of the character of the interaction in question, so I decided to just go with it, and - just this once! - throw grammar under the bus.

(I did consider "pusillanimously", but to my mind that somehow doesn't quite capture the kind of cowardliness  that characterizes bullying)
7
On the other hand I just read that New Jersey democrats are fighting a tax hike on millionaires. 
Fighting among themselves, that is.
(D) state senate president Sweeney is resisting (D) governor Murphy's tax proposal that includes a "millionaire tax".
New Jersey Senate Leader Casts Doubt on Governor's Plan to Raise Taxes
8
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.

You know what else is "incredibly" thin and "super duper" flat?

The Ocean (that's right, there's just one because they're all connected).  It covers 70% of the earth's surface, i.e. 138,000,000 square miles, and is on average 12,100 ft deep. That's the equivalent of an 8.5"x11" piece of paper, less than 0.1 effing MICRON thick!!!1!.

So take that, Darwinists!
9
Where have you shown anything about extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat or uniform?

"extraoardinarily", relative to what?

Look at all theses states it's found in ...
Quote
Historically the name "Potsdam sandstone" was also applied to various other North American sandstone bodies that directly overlie Precambrian crystalline rocks, including sandstones in Canada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Indiana, and attempts were made to identify or correlate various rocks with the Potsdam formation.[23][24][25]
Do you see the problem here?
10
I'm pretty sure we'll have about 2000 miles across and an average thickness of about 1500 feet.
1. Your "pretty sure" isn't worth much.
2. That "average" covers a huge range (including 0).  Which kind of argues against "incredibly thin" and "super duper flat".
3. SFW?  How would this be evidence FOR your "Global Flood" - or even just AGAINST standard geology - even if you HAD demonstrated it?
11
There's plenty of sandstone but no extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat uniform layer.
Sure there is. I've just shown you it for the northeast and central usa...
No. You haven't.

Where have you shown anything about extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat or uniform?

"extraoardinarily", relative to what?
12
But then there's also this clumsy gaslighting gambit he frequently trots out, where he pretends that you have to be some sort of wackaloon, or be "lobotomized" to see things differently from the way he does. As in: "hilariously out to lunch".

There's a disturbing parallel with the fondness with which he recalls his junior high bullying stunt.
13
I don't remember exactly how he formulated it, but basically he actually said that if he knew nothing else about a subject, just given a conflict between consensus science and an alternative reality alternative, he would by default assume that the alternative was right and the consensus wrong. Because, you know, Galileo.
14
The focus among the multiple "Socrates"s?
15
Could someone quote where "folks here" have claimed that "macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics"?

Thanks in advance!
Worth repeating.  Apparently.
16
Oh look. Dave's "forgotten" everything I've written to him on this subject. It's as though he's never heard of Walther's law. Fancy that. Daves got a mind like a steel trap - as in dense and closed.

Beginning to think he hasn't even figured out how to get to Zombie TR and is too proud to ask.

Dave: link to Zombie TR at top of page, between New Replies and Donate. Click. Log in just as you always did, using your old password.
This discussion so far has largely been a ...

:grandpa:

...  of this one, here at the current TR.
17
Hey I found a nice diagram of the Lamotte/Mount Simon portion of the extraordinarily thin, extraordinarily fine, extraordinarily flat layer of sandstone.
and, of course, continent wide!
18
Yes Peez I know. You are like that Junior High kid I told about who was laughing at the joke he didn't understand.
idgi...  In what way is Peez like the kid you so cowardly bullied?
19
note:  "stratigraphically equivalent" =/= "the same"

Also: the Tapeats sandstone is not "correlated" or "stratigraphically equivalent" to the Mount Simon, so
Quote
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.
... is either mistaken or a LIE.


20
Could someone quote where "folks here" have claimed that "macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics"?

Thanks in advance!
21
btw...
No one said anything about "plants evolving themselves".
Plants evolve.
It's an intransitive verb.
You sleep; you don't sleep yourself.

Let me know if you need any more pointers on the English language.
22
Ignoring for the moment that hilarious idea of plants evolving themselves, let's just give you your bare land surface.  How the hell are you going to get a 2000 mile wide Sandstone layer that averages 1000 feet thick?
Ignoring for the moment the fact that you have not identified any "2000 mile wide Sandstone layer that averages 1000 feet thick",  how would a catastrophic "Global Flood" result in such a thing?  :dunno:
24
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ...
Says who?
25
Economic history books of the future will have chapters on Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Dave Hawkins.
The Dave Hawkins one will be written in Giant Colored Font