Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Serious Business, Serious Discussions.

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 - osmanthus

1
Science / Re: Neutron star collision detected
No. Why would you think that? I just think it's a totally cool bit of science.
2
Sieg heil! :cheer:
3
Science / Re: Neutron star collision detected
What I would now like Dave to explain is how this happened if the stars were 130 million light years away and we've just seen it. :stopper:
4
Science / Re: Neutron star collision detected
Yes it's a good one alright. I'm very chuffed about it. :]
The Guardian has a brief article on it too.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/16/astronomers-witness-neutron-stars-collide-global-rapid-response-event-ligo
5
Absolute 100% fucking truth! Accept no substitutes!

And since it's only found in a literal reading of the Bible, everything else can be discarded as lies!

So there.

Nya.

 :turtlebert:
6
Thread is going well.  :yes:
8
Ok, fine. But I'm still curious as to what your solution is for stopping all the heat leaking out of your house.
9
Ok, so what's your solution then?

And no, I don't give care about any mythical Darwin Club. If I say I think you're being a fuckwit, it's because I think you're being a fuckwit. It's that simple.
10
I mean I know he could proceed sanely and sensibly, in theory, but that simply doesn't apply. He's like a kamikaze pilot who will crash and burn rather than questioning his orthodoxy. It doesn't occur to him to just land the fucking plane. He's going to heaven in a blaze of glory and that's fucking that.
11
Well hey, look at the basis of his worldview. How else can he proceed?
12
It was a post against general inaccuracy.

You really are being a fuckwit about the state of your house. Your argument comes down to "If I make a hot bit here that will solve my problem even if all the heat is constantly leaking out of my crappy house". Like I said, blowtorch on arse, and cold feet.
13
I'm not agreeing with you, numbnuts. Not about your silly Fludde mythology anyway. I still think that's ridiculous.
14
I didn't claim they were the same facies. I was just pointing out that the same transgression could give the result you mentioned, so the result mentioned was not, in itself, an argument against them being part of the same deposit.

None of that quote really matters anyway. All Dave is trying to argue is that there is a layer which was all laid down at the same time. IOW, local differences in sediment type or thickness wouldn't be relevant to his case. His case is sunk by the simple fact that there are large areas with no Cambrian sediment.

But yes, the obsession with flatness is bizarre. I have no idea where he gets that one.
15
Fire going wild is definitely an issue, but probably not one that would be relevant in Missouri in winter. But if anyone could do it, Dave could.
16
You're still a fuckwit for being so pig-headed about trying to heat a leaky house. As JonF said, it really is the ultimate in reductionism. It's about as sensible as heating your arse with a blowtorch and wondering why your feet are cold.
17
A transgression that might be 1000 miles or more in length, but is depositing only from a band with a width of a few miles at any given moment. As the coastline moves in or out, the band of deposition moves in and out with it. And, no, it was not the same band for all those formations you named. The Tapeats formed from the west to the east. The sandstones in Eastern North America formed from the southeast to the northwest. Can't be the parts of the same layer.
Well yes, they can. It's perfectly possible that, given different gradients on the east and west coasts, you would see that result.
18
Where's the evidence that all those DIFFERENT formations are one continuous sheet? (Let alone one "extraordinarily thin" or  "extraordinarily flat" one?  :dunno:
Who decided that they are "DIFFERENT"? Based upon what? "I'm a geologist and I live in Potsdam, New York ... hmm I think I'll name this sandstone 'Potsdam' ..."
Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic.  Obviously the same, right?
But, to play devil's advocate, none of those factors preclude it all being laid down in the same transgression. In fact we can be sure that sediment was deposited over a vast range during the Sauk. Which doesn't mean that Dave has correctly identified it all, but it is what we would expect to find.
19
The Deadwood Quartzite is an even bigger problem for Dave

This material was laid down, metamorphosed and eroded into boulders. Some of these which were then rounded by surf then marine organisms made 1-2 inch bore holes in them

All while submerged and being buried by sediment in a catastrophic global flood...
Not only that, but the abstract mentions that the boulders contain trace fossils that were formed when the quartzite was soft sediment. So it had to be laid down when the water was placid :grin: enough to preserve such trace fossils, then lithified, then metamorphosed, then eroded out into boulders, then bored by marine critters and rolled around in the surf.

And it had to get all of that done before later layers of sediment were laid down on top of it.
20
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quartzite is a metamorphic rock, so you'll also have to explain how the formations in Utah and South Dakota was subjected to such heat and pressure in the time since it was deposited.
Easy. The heat of decay from all those billions of dead things all decomposing at once. :yes:
21
And, of course, there's the whole thing about burning wood for heat. Huge waste of a natural resource that dumps a load of carbon into the atmosphere. Not very sustainable.
Wood is carbon-neutral. Propane isn't. Trees grow back, if you are sensible about harvesting. Yes, I realise being sensible is not Dave's forte.

Plus the whole annoyance of smoke for anyone down wind.
Not really relevant on rural blocks.
22
What I'm saying is (a) there is massive evidence of a recent global flood and (b) any kind of uniformitarian analysis is therefore fucked from the get go ... even Brown's analysis is not correct although it at least attempts to take into account a massive perturbation.

So to be honest, I don't know how you make models and predictions about such a massive cataclysm.  I suppose it can be done, but it's gonna be difficult.
You still don't seem to understand Testy's questions. You're still talking about something else entirely.
23
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
God bless America! Land of the fuckwits. :parrot:
24
I don't understand ANY curves very well...
What happened to that famous high speed mind that was running circles around the rest of us?

You don't even seem to have understood Testy's first question. He wasn't asking if you understood any of the curves in great detail. He was asking if you understood that, as models, any curves will make predictions about the real world.

Do you understand that models make predictions?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


If yes, do you understand that the curves are models?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


If yes, do you agree that, as models, curves make predictions?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If you can get your high speed mind to jump through the hoops of those questions, and have managed to answer "Yes" so far, we can then move on to Testy's second question:

Do you agree that the predictions made by models are not dependent on real word data? In other words, do you agree that since models are made by humans they can make them without reference to actual data?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

And I bet you will reply with snark and or bluster rather than simply answering.
25
The world has been saved since last Thursday.