Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: *flounce*

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 - fredbear

1
Anyone else agree?

A mod can feel free to change the title of this thread to "Basal Cambrian Sandstone" if they like so that Voxrat will quit bursting blood vessels and hyperventilating. I disagree with the guy but I'd hate to see him have a stroke or a heart attack.
Maybe the mod could change the title of this thread to "Basal Cambrian Sandstone (that mysteriously contains none of the billions of dead things that we would expect if it was laid down in the single flood year)". What would you think of that Dave? Would you be able to see the question then?
call it pink and purple polka dot cows for all I care.
You know Dave, if you put as much effort into actually answering questions as you do avoiding them, you'd get a lot more out of participating in this forum, and you would gain a lot more respect.
2
Dave,

Why utilize the board 'ignore' feature when your internal ignore feature works so much better?
3
Anyone else agree?

A mod can feel free to change the title of this thread to "Basal Cambrian Sandstone" if they like so that Voxrat will quit bursting blood vessels and hyperventilating. I disagree with the guy but I'd hate to see him have a stroke or a heart attack.
Maybe the mod could change the title of this thread to "Basal Cambrian Sandstone (that mysteriously contains none of the billions of dead things that we would expect if it was laid down in the single flood year)". What would you think of that Dave? Would you be able to see the question then?
4
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'll Grant you I first learned about them from icr.

Well, for some value of "learned" I guess.  You certainly read about them there.  But not even ICR bothers to point out that there are allegedly TWO of these extraordinary pancakes, probably because they hope the punters won't read both articles and notice that they are talking about two quite different strata.

But I learned the specifics of the layer that I'm now interested in - the cambrian basal sandstone - from various mainstream articles on the internet presumably based on geological texts. 

And the "specifics" as you call them don't actually support ICR's claim. And ICR knows this too. So they accuse the geologists of being "provincial". Which is obvious bullshit.  If geologists were "provincial", there would be no talk of Cambrian or Ordovician or Silurian etc layers, no talk of mega sequences, no maps of the N.American craton - the very ones you posted.

So stop dispensing squid ink and schaff and flares and deal with what I've actually posted.

no u
Quote
Coward.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
if they were not being provincial, then they would give the single basal sandstone layer a single name instead of 20 different names.

There is no single layer. Your spectacular failure to produce any evidence for your claim is obvious.

Afdave's Third Law
: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.
You don't have to call it a "single layer" if you don't want to.

However ...

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?
4) This sandstone contains no remains of 'billionzodeadthings'

What do we make of that, Dave?

Yes Dave, a good scientist must look at all the data.  Why are you not looking at this question?
Yet another case of:

Afdave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.
5
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'll Grant you I first learned about them from icr.

Well, for some value of "learned" I guess.  You certainly read about them there.  But not even ICR bothers to point out that there are allegedly TWO of these extraordinary pancakes, probably because they hope the punters won't read both articles and notice that they are talking about two quite different strata.

But I learned the specifics of the layer that I'm now interested in - the cambrian basal sandstone - from various mainstream articles on the internet presumably based on geological texts. 

And the "specifics" as you call them don't actually support ICR's claim. And ICR knows this too. So they accuse the geologists of being "provincial". Which is obvious bullshit.  If geologists were "provincial", there would be no talk of Cambrian or Ordovician or Silurian etc layers, no talk of mega sequences, no maps of the N.American craton - the very ones you posted.

So stop dispensing squid ink and schaff and flares and deal with what I've actually posted.

no u
Quote
Coward.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
if they were not being provincial, then they would give the single basal sandstone layer a single name instead of 20 different names.

There is no single layer. Your spectacular failure to produce any evidence for your claim is obvious.

Afdave's Third Law
: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.
You don't have to call it a "single layer" if you don't want to.

However ...

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?
4) This sandstone contains no remains of 'billionzodeadthings'

What do we make of that, Dave?
6
So back to my original question.

We have this basal Cambrian Sandstone, right? It has various names in various parts of N. Am. ... Mount Simon, tapeats, lamotte, Potsdam, Etc.  Do we all agree that this is basically a single formation all formed by a single Marine transgression? ( never mind for the moment that you think it was a calm Placid Marine transgression over millions of years and I think it was a violent raging torrent over a single year )

Do we at least agree that this basal Sandstone layer was a single formation caused by a single Marine transgression?
Wait a minute. This thread is "Evidence for the Global Flood".

Along with 'lotsafloodlegendz', wasn't the key 'evidence' billionzodeadthings?

If so, wouldn't we expect to see 'billionzodeadthings' in your basal Sandstone layer?
Dave?
Dave?
7
So back to my original question.

We have this basal Cambrian Sandstone, right? It has various names in various parts of N. Am. ... Mount Simon, tapeats, lamotte, Potsdam, Etc.  Do we all agree that this is basically a single formation all formed by a single Marine transgression? ( never mind for the moment that you think it was a calm Placid Marine transgression over millions of years and I think it was a violent raging torrent over a single year )

Do we at least agree that this basal Sandstone layer was a single formation caused by a single Marine transgression?
Wait a minute. This thread is "Evidence for the Global Flood".

Along with 'lotsafloodlegendz', wasn't the key 'evidence' billionzodeadthings?

If so, wouldn't we expect to see 'billionzodeadthings' in your basal Sandstone layer?
Dave?
8
So back to my original question.

We have this basal Cambrian Sandstone, right? It has various names in various parts of N. Am. ... Mount Simon, tapeats, lamotte, Potsdam, Etc.  Do we all agree that this is basically a single formation all formed by a single Marine transgression? ( never mind for the moment that you think it was a calm Placid Marine transgression over millions of years and I think it was a violent raging torrent over a single year )

Do we at least agree that this basal Sandstone layer was a single formation caused by a single Marine transgression?
Wait a minute. This thread is "Evidence for the Global Flood".

Along with 'lotsafloodlegendz', wasn't the key 'evidence' billionzodeadthings?

If so, wouldn't we expect to see 'billionzodeadthings' in your basal Sandstone layer?
9
Great questions. I don't have all the answers but I'm learning quite a bit from Guy Berthault's flume experiments.
O God. Not this shit again.
10
We are taking a look at the geological provincialism article to see if it holds water.
Spoiler alert: It doesn't.
11
Inb4:

Quote
The record as interpreted on the time-length diagram is not, of course, preserved in auything like this form. Each of the nondepositional episodes was accompanied by extensive erosion introducing a severe loss to the preserved record, thus requiring a very considerable degree of interpretation and reconstruction. Therefore, readers may well find grounds to dispute a number of the details of the writer's reconstruction.

Stupid Octohatters admit lying!
12
Dave, how would you score yourself in this discussion? How would you score others?
Dave scores himself with "outstanding" much in the way he schooled us on nested hierarchies. Or his spectacular performance with his 'green wall' article (which lead directly to this latest diversionary fiasco).
13
Lol
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
Why do you waste the bandwidth to basically say "nuh uh"? Why don't you just use this post to explain yourself?
14
If you are going to fuck up, Ben, you might want to do it more subtly.

Well actually never mind. You did just fine sucking in five lemmings without being subtle at all.

So carry on I guess!
More poo-flinging. Where's the proof, Dave? Proofs require evidence, something you haven even attempted to present as yet.

Ninjad, dammit.
15
Basic geology is not what is needed. What is needed is basic honesty.
Basic geology is needed to understand basic geology, Dave. Something you seem to profoundly in need of itt.

Basic honesty would go a long way in reversing the hideous damage done to your brain by creationism, but sadly you seem to be beyond repair.

Yes, I do think all these geologists are wrong.

Proving it as we speak.

Stay tuned.
Have you started "proving" it yet, Dave? It was supposed to be "as we speak" and so far there's only been some rather tame poo-flinging.
16
Out standing in his field, I see.
Why is there no "unlike" button?
19
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?

Or, fwiw, has he bothered to explain why this is such a crucial 'gotcha!' for team Darwin even if he does establish this point (he wont)
21
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.
Check my sig.
22
Well, we aren't dealing with the sanest knife in the shed.
23
The reason I ask is the sand had to either come from somewhere. Sand is typically not a base form of rock. The exception is volcanic sands but they are clearly different than most sandstone formations. Sands typically come from two sources: rock that's been broken down by weathering and erosion, first by freeze/thaw cycles and then bashing & crashing down and finally bashed & smashed by rivers & waves or from broken shells & other marine structures. Both of the processes take a very long time.

But according to Bluffy's myth, there was only about 1500 tears from creation to Ye Bigge Olde Fludde. Not enough time for either process the enormous volumes of sand involved in all those sandstones as well as all the other massive sand based formations.
Good point.

Your model is completely fucked, Dave. Beating this dead horse isn't going anywhere. Do you have anything else?
24
I still want to know where Bluffy thinks all that sand came from.
Thats an interesting good point.   In order to deposit sediment 1000 feet thick the flood would have to have been turbulent enough to pick up and suspend a ridiculous amount of sediment.  
And then filter it from all the other churning shit before depositing it.

None of this makes any sense at all.
25
Since Dave likes summaries:

Dave: Bahahah. Here's an article that shows stupid octohatters being stupid. Derp. Derp.
Everyone Else: Um...Dave? Did you read that article?
Dave: Of course I did. Stupid octohatters.
Everyone Else: .....Because that article describes something being done despite warnings by octohatters. Perhaps you should, you know, actually read the article.
Dave: I already said I read the article. Stupid octohatters.
Everyone else: Well the conclusion you seem to have drawn from that article is in direct contrast to the contents of that article so either you are lying about having read the article (and merely assumed from the first couple of words in the title that it conforms whatever you want to believe), or you are incredibly stupid. Which is it?
Dave: I read the article. Maybe the politician/farmer/woo-merchant got his idea from the octohatters and the article didn't mention that part. Stupid Octohatters.
Everyone Else: So you're going with incredibly stupid, then.
Dave: Oooh look! Shiny thing! Distraction!
Dave? Comments? Do you feel there is a mischaracterization being presented here?

Do you have any idea how you appear to sane people?  Your sole purpose here is as an object lesson in what blind adherence to creationism can do to corrupt rational though processes that in turn infect every facet of what you do. Its revelatory, and sad.