Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Death by Exile

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 - Dave Hawkins

1
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided". 

He'd never admit that here though. 
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
I mean look ... What we have NOW is calm Placid Seas. So we can look at what happens on the margins of these calm Placid Seas and then use our imagination to extrapolate what would happen if this these calm Placid Seas Rose slowly over millions of years. And when I do that I find no place on Earth where you could conceivably do this extrapolation and come up with anything like the Sandstone layer that we find on the Precambrian basement.

But again, I remain open-minded. Convince me with compelling arguments.
2
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided".  

He'd never admit that here though.  
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
3
Anyway.  The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.  Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.  Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I'm convinced there's nothing of the kind. And I doubt you've convinced entropy or anyone else.

And anyway, the latest story is that there is supposed to be two. Both extraordinarily thin, flat, uniform, and vast.
yes or there maybe 3 I don't know. But I am focusing on the basal layer at the moment so as not to have my vision obscured by Squid Ink.
4
In other words I'm trying to do science.

And you guys don't seem to like that very much.
5
Anyway.  The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.  Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.  Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?

Dave, did you look at that map and just assume that everything in white had a lower layer of sandstone?
Yes, he did.  No, It doesn't
No I did not.

But there IS a lot of basal sandstone.

And it covers multiple states in the USA according to the Octohatters who study it.

And the thicknesses that I have seen listed range from 100ft to 2000 ft. Which is incredibly thin if we are talking about a layer which might be thousands of miles in areal extent

So what I'm trying to do is piece together all this this disparate information into a coherent map of some sort.
6
IOW ... if we do a good job of studying all these variously named basal sandstones and come away agreeing that it's all one continent wide layer that's incredibly thin and incredibly flat ...

Then how could such a layer form?
7
Anyway.   The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.   Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.   Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?
Hard to model the exact formation of the distribution of deposits that are hundreds of millions of years old and buried under thousands of feets of rock.  Must have been magical flood waters, right?  

My point is (if you can turn off the smug cunty-ness for a minute and read for comprehension) that in a world covered by granite and basalt rocks the product of their erosion is SAND.  [snip speculation in the interest of focusing on DATA]
Yes, on this point we agree.

And my first question is ...

1) What is the NATURE of the basal SAND layer?  Areal extent? Thickness?  Flatness? Composition? Etc?  (My suspicion is that is is continent sized, very thin and very flat)

Then and only then ...

2) What can we infer from these data wrt possible origin of the layer?
8
Anyway.   The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.   Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.   Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?
9
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? Or are there just a bunch of little individual sandstones all over the place with all these funky names?
No, Dave.

The first question in any such analysis would need to be "What is there, geologically?"

The question you are trying to ask is interpretation. Data first, then interpretation.
You'll see it doesn't matter.  But ok.  If it makes you feel better ...

"What is there - 'geologically' - lying directly atop the Pre-Cambrian basement?  Sandstone?  Over how large an area?  What is the average thickness? How flat is it?"

There.

I hope that sentence structure makes all your inner voices sing joyfully in unison.
10
Anyway.  The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.  Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.  Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
I'm convinced there's nothing of the kind. And I doubt you've convinced entropy or anyone else.
I see.  Well let's see if I can surpass Jesus walking on water in the Olympic Event of "Achieving the Impossible" by trying to convince you.

Let's review some things ...

Quote
Abstract

The Mount Simon Sandstone (Mt. Simon), a basal Cambrian sandstone underlying much of Midwestern US, is a target for underground CO2 storage and waste injection which requires an assessment of geomechanical behavior.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613003952
Do you have any reason to disagree in any way with the above statement? Especially the part ending in "Midwestern US"??
11
SANDSTONE THAT LIES ON THE CAMBRIAN BASEMENT

1. Mt Simon
2. Tapeats
3.  Lamotte?
4.  Potsdam?

Many others I think ...
Why do you think that there being sandstone over the Pre-Cambrian rocks over a much of North America supports the flood theory, rather than the standard model?    The flood model requires water that covers the planet, turbulent enough to suspend ALL of the material is now sitting sitting the Pre-Cambrian basement,  If you look at the maps I just posted you'll see that there is 4000 feet of sedimentary rock over Iowa.  All of that would have had to be picked up by the flood waters.  And then you think that in the middle of this raging catastrophe the flood water first dropped ONLY the sand to make your "very pure, very flat very large" formation?  But not over northern Canada?  Or the Black Hills for some reason?  And then the flood waters dropped the rest of the sediment to make a really complex bedding patterns, again not over northern Canada?  Why did it drop several thousand more feet of material on what is now the Rocky Mountains?   

ETA: Why are there exposed Pre-Cambrian rocks in these particular areas all over the planet? 
And I like this diagram because it helps us see "The Big Picture"
12
Anyway.   The continental basement Precambrian rocks are mostly granite.   Granite is quartz, mica and feldspar.  Sand in non-tropical regions is mostly crushed and rounded quartz particles.   Why could the weathering of Precambrian rocks, followed by the movement of this material by water, not have created wide beds of sand?
Great question.  Premature.  Let's finish convincing everyone first that there IS a ...

Continent sized, incredibly thin, super duper flat layer of sandstone covering most of N. America

You seem to be finally convinced.  What about everyone else?

(And when I say "continent sized" yes I realize that not every square inch of the continent is covered)
13
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? Or are there just a bunch of little individual sandstones all over the place with all these funky names?
Perhaps you should abandon this argument and choose one that is more compelling  - as in has more robust evidence for.
Oh there's robust evidence for it alright.  It's just hard to dig up because of ...

well ...

Geological Provincialism (hat tip Bill Hoesch of ICR)
14
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? Or are there just a bunch of little individual sandstones all over the place with all these funky names?
15
Glad you like what you think you see. 
16
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.
Groupthink.
17
Great questions. I don't have all the answers but I'm learning quite a bit from Guy Berthault's flume experiments.
18
Quote
The Lamotte Sandstone is the basal Cambrian sandstone found throughout most of the state of Missouri. It directly overlies late Precambrian (1.4 to 1.5 billion year old) granites and metasediments. The Lamotte and overlying Bonneterre Formations are generally considered to have been deposited by a transgression which occurred during the Late Cambrian Period (Croixian Epoch). http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/530/
20
I suppose that saving the world should indeed include saving it from Bad spelling and bad grammar.
21
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.
22
SANDSTONE THAT LIES ON THE CAMBRIAN BASEMENT

1. Mt Simon
2. Tapeats
3.  Lamotte?
4.  Potsdam?

Many others I think ...
23
Testy shut up you ignorant dork.
24
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?
But that's not what we do have.
And, yes, they are different formations.
okay I think I was wrong about the Jordan Sandstone. There's so many damn names it's hard to sort it all out.  I think "Mt Simon" ( or Mount Sinai if you prefer ) is the name given to the "basal" Cambrian sandstone. Pretty sure basal means that it sits on the pre Cambrian basement.  Now I just have to figure out what they mean by "much of the Midwestern US." And does this include Iowa.
Quote
Abstract

The Mount Simon Sandstone (Mt. Simon), a basal Cambrian sandstone underlying much of Midwestern US, is a target for underground CO2 storage and waste injection which requires an assessment of geomechanical behavior.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613003952
25
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?