Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: because that other board banned you

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 - Testy Calibrate

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.
No he wouldn't.
2
Over at Pingu's site, The Skeptical Zone, she wrote ...

Quote
There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them.  There's nothing wrong with those sites, and I've learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.  In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties.

I highlighted the last part because I agree.

In that spirit ... let's see what common ground we hold with respect to ...

BASAL CAMBRIAN SANDSTONES IN N. AMERICA

I do believe that we all share the belief that ...

1) They are mainly sandstone
2) They were laid down by water
3) There is a lot of sandstone in N. America, perhaps covering 3/4 of the land surface
4) There are different names in different parts of N. Am., Potsdam, Lamotte, Mt. Simon, Tapeats, etc.
5) But each of these names refers to "basal Cambrian sandstone" ... the word "basal" defined previously

Can we all agree to this so far?
I can, tentatively.
Wow. I'm in shock.
Modified to make Voxrat happy. 

I don't think any mainstream scientists think that any basal Cambrian Sandstone is aeolian. Other sandstones higher up, but not basal Cambrian. Also I think Voxrat's comment about different materials underlying these sandstones is incorrect because the very definition of basal Cambrian means that it lies directly on top of Precambrian basement rock.
You'd think that it would lie atop precambrian sandstone in places. Wouldn't that falsify your flood myth though?
3
The bad times are already here for sure. 
4
I wonder if there's a lot more kompromat out there than we thought
6
Over at Pingu's site, The Skeptical Zone, she wrote ...

Quote
There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them.  There's nothing wrong with those sites, and I've learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.  In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties.

I highlighted the last part because I agree.
Bull.
Shit.

This is #AnotherHawkinsLie.

You pretend to agree, when you want to self-righteously play the "objective truth seeker" part.
But you're not fooling anyone.
If your purpose WERE to
Quote
discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie 
you would not have titled the thread as you did, and you would not regularly, sneeringly, dismiss other views as "Alice in Wonderland" stories.

You are a fraud.
He would not be pushing a conclusion while simultaneously searching for facts to support it.
7
Philosophy / Re: Math question:
it was good. The guy who used the term sounded like he was intending a technical use of the term which didn't make sense but now I think he meant it in some closer to technical but still metaphorical way.
8
was it all laid down by water?
9
jesus christ
10
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.

Thanks very much for putting your Badger friend behind a spoiler so it doesn't fuck up my screen on my phone.
Heh. Unless it wasn't a single basal layer
11
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.
We don't agree on what "this basal Sandstone" even is.
we agree that it's sandstone.
amazing
12
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.

Sure there are.
Fine. Show me a shoreline anywhere in the world where this type (size, thinness, flatness) sandstone layer is forming today.

You're going to have to get a lot more specific than "hey Dave ever been to a beach?"
13
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.

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

We just disagree on how long it took.

That's all.

I disagree.
14
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.
well, yes there actually is. But more important, for not knowing most of the answers yet, you sure do have a lot of confidence in your conclusions.
15
It might also be time for a reminder that there are sedimentary layers, including sandstone, in the Pre-Cambrian too...


this is an interesting diagram but not for the reasons that you think.
It's interesting for all sorts of reasons.
And it may be interesting to different people for different reasons.
Despite what your raging narcissism tells you, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes "interesting" in some elusive absolute sense.

I, for instance, at the moment, find it interesting that it shows a lot of strata - including sandstone! - that UNDERLIE (uncomformably, even!) the layers you are "proposing" as "Evidence for the Global Flood". It's also interesting how predictable it is that you badger off from evidence such as this, which one might think any "open minded" truth-seeker would find pretty compelling.
i find it interesting that cambrain is an epoch
17
Among other things: what do you think is meant by "the same formation"?
Excellent question. This man may end up earning his PhD from AF Dave University.
Or high school geology from a normal high school.
18
Philosophy / Re: Math question:
The analogy was to the known factors that contribute to the direction our institution is taking.
So these "known factors" are like equations, in the analogy?

Sounds like the sort of analogy I might use if I were describing a set of constraints with the property that they are impossible to obey all at the same time.
That's what I was thinking but then I got a little bit in that analogy and decided that inconsistency would be due to the equations using different axioms or something else that makes the solution  inconsistent. As in, why would there be multiple true equations ( in this case having some empirical corollary) that together produce inconsistent results? Are they different logics? Is it a recursive problem?
20
In other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.
On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.
You would need more information to conclude that.
Hmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something else

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?
fuck but you suck at science. Of course there is that possibility.
21
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is a completely oblivious idiot.
maybe her english isn't good enough to know what it means. But does that mean that every single person with her is a nazi? oh.. nm
22
no hidden message for sure.
23
Philosophy / Math question:
In an overdetermined system in the cases where there are no solutions and where there are (as presented in the wiki link), are we looking at error, chaos (or some math equivalent), or faulty definitions? Or what?

I am starting from ground zero so I am probably asking the question wrong. I encountered the term in a meeting this morning and did not get a good response when I asked what it meant in context. The people were all mathy types and seemed ok with the analogy but I really don't get it. The analogy was to the known factors that contribute to the direction our institution is taking. Since there was an empirical or at least nominally empirical dimension to the statement, I assume this means the people in the meeting who understood the analogy got some utility from the understanding. Any thoughts?
24
I get the feeling that up close the fundy argument is basically that how could a gentle sea have made a landform so massive and thick.

It's a strange trick how yec/whatever echo chamber contortions work to keep the mind closed.
25
Just crazy. This timeline is the bomb