Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: no u

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 - JonF

1
You guys are starting to ask some great questions.

But the first question needs to be "is there a very large very flat very thin sandstone layer sitting atop the pre-cambrian basement pretty much all over the world?
No.

Interesting jump from much of North America to all over the world.
2
The Jordan sandstone is late Cambrian (Croixian, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249525610_Deposition_of_the_uppermost_Cambrian_Croixan_Jordan_Sandstone_and_the_nature_of_the_Cambrian-Ordovician_boundary_in_the_Upper_Mississippi_Valley). The Lamotte sandstone is Silurian (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/LamotteRefs_2391.html). Clearly different. Neither lies on PreCambrian basement.

Weren't we discussing Cambrian formations only?
3
And, dammit, the fact that geologists actually call rocks "Cambrian" even when they are found in North America!
:sosmug: Dave won't get it.
4
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.
We know that. It also does not mean they are the same, especially when they differ in composition or other significant ways. We also know that the evidence you have posted so far strongly indicates the Mt. Simon sandstone and the Potsdam sandstone are indeed different formations. You haven't tried with any other formations.

7
In my never-ending quest to get you guys to use your own brains independently instead of submitting to groupthink, let me ask you a question ...

The lamotte sandstone. (Just to pick one which you guys think is of Cambrian age)

Here's a random abstract that says it covers all of Missouri ...
Quote
Abstract
The Lamotte Sandstone, the basal Cambrian sedimentary rock unit continuous throughout Missouri, was investigated as a potential unit for shallow geologic carbon sequestration.  https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/2166/

Do you guys think that this means that it just ends at the borders of Missouri? Or what?
You're the one doing the research and pushing your fantasy.

You tell us what it does based on.....

EVIDENCE.
8
Evidence, Davie-dork.
9
Well, he did present those Wikipedia articles.  Which (as usual) almost refute his claim.
10
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.
Because Dave trots out this "Alice in Wonderland story" projection every time someone tells him what a scientific theory he doesn't accept says, there's something I think is worth noting here. In a sense, all scientific theories are stories. They are the stories that explain our observations. But there is an important difference between them and fictional (or religious) stories. That difference is that the scientific theories are based on our observations. In other words, they are true stories (or at least as close to true as we can currently get). Fictional (and religious) stories, in contrast, are not based on observation. They are made up.

This, for example, is a made up story...
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.

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.
It is not based on observation. It's based this...
http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/
Which itself is a made up story. It has no references to actual research. It pretends to be based on observation by using language stolen from actual scientists, but in reality, it's a clumsy attempt to shoehorn observations into a pre-existing made up story (the Genesis myth).

Actual scientific theories (true stories) do not need to force observations to fit them. They are based on the observations.
Nope.

It's not based on that article. (Lol at the 5 lemmings that liked your I correct post)

I cannot remember for sure, but I don't believe the Saint Peter Sandstone is classified as Cambrian.

In this thread I'm talking about what you guys call Cambrian sandstones.  If you want a nice article that I'm using as a research outline, Google "ICR geological provincialism William Hoesch"

Come on, Ben. You can do better.
That article has no evidence or references. It is useless as a basis for research.

We need evidence, Davie-doodles. Not just your ignorant incredulity. Evidence.

Evidence

Did I mention evidence yet?

Such as the evidence listed in the Wikipedia articles which nearly refutes your claim.

EVIDENCE!

11
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:

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.
There is no evidence of that.

Quote
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! 
Still just an unsupported assertion. Still don't understand Walther's law.

(BTW, those maps don't show you every transgression or regression.)
13
Wow.  The best "science" anyone could come up with to refute my point is a cheap propaganda video.
Ad hominem. You obviously have no evidence or argument for your claims or against the mainstream.
14
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!!!
Walther's law.

But wrong question.

What evidence demonstrates that they are a single unit?

None, amirite?
15
Many many moons ago I took an operating systems class taught by John Donovan.  He was a lousy speller and the principal author of the FORTRAN compiler for the  IBM 7094,one of the first transistorized computers. He said it accepted nine different spellings of "dimension".
16
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?
Yes I see the problem quite clearly. <Snip irrelevant bullshit>
You have not posted anything that even hints at the two formations are the same.
17
".
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?

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] The basal Cambrian sandstone formation in much of the upper Mississippi Valley and southern Great Lakes region is now designated the Mount Simon Sandstone and is, in turn, assigned to the Potsdam Supergroup, which takes its name from the Potsdam Sandstone.[24] Similar quartz arenite sandstone found in Wyoming was also identified historically as the "Potsdam sandstone."[25][26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Sandstone
I count 8 states in this para plus Canada

Add 4 more states from this para
Quote
Correlation: The Mount Simon Sandstone is known by this name in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky and is the equivalent of the Lamotte Sandstone of Missouri (Droste and Shaver, 1983 Shaver and others, 1985). https://igws.indiana.edu/compendium/comp0i04.cfm

And we haven't looked at the American West yet.

When we get done, I'm pretty sure we'll have about 2000 miles across and an average thickness of about 1500 feet.

That's vast and incredibly thin ... then we will look at the flatness.
The Mount Simon and the Potsdam are different formations.See your second reference where it says the Mount Simon is part of the Potsdam supergroup.
18
Oh, wasn't it the St Peter sandstone that was supposed to be "extraordinarily fine"?

But that isn't even in the same megasequence I don't think....

Basically, when you google anything to do with a vast area of sandstone covering most of North America, you end up in a creationist site.

They are simply lying.

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... just gotta correlate the rest of the country
There's no correlation between the two formations. Correlation is not "being the same".
19
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.
No such link in the mobile version.

Are the other links visible?

Community
My Messages
Mentions
New Posts
New Replies
Zombie TR
Donate!

(Horizontal layout on desktop)
Interesting. It's there in landscape on labeled buttons but not in portrait with unlabeled icons.

I asked about this in the support forum some time ago, and Ravescape IIRC said said it is what it is
20
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.
No such link in the mobile version.
21
.
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.
sample statement from material I have posted recently which you apparently missed...

Quote
Correlation: The Mount Simon Sandstone is known by this name in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky and is the equivalent of the Lamotte Sandstone of Missouri (Droste and Shaver, 1983 Shaver and others, 1985).

IOW not correlated with or equivalent to the Potsdam.
22
 
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.
They do not say either, especially the latter. Neither is mentioned in article on the other.
23
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.
Hahahahahaha

Dave thinks there were all these little basins all over North America where sand accumulated individually and that's why they have all these different names.
Pretty much true.
24
Of course we could check the references and evidence listed in Dave's article at http://www.icr.org/article/geological-provincialism/.

Oh wait...

No evidence and no references there!
25
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ... just given different names by region.
All you have posted indicates no correlations between the Potsdam and the Mount Simon. Even if your sources indicated correlation that does not mean the formations are the same. In fact, it means the opposite. One thing cannot be correlated with itself. Duh.

Quote
correlation
1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone

Note that the Mount Simon is in the Potsdam supergroup, which includes the Potsdam sandstone and the Mount Simon. That explicitly means they are different.