Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: You don't expect me to read this shit, do 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 - Faid

1
In other words I'm trying to do science.

And you guys don't seem to like that very much.
LOL. Sure dear.

Now how about you tell us: What would YOU expect to see in that lower layer?
2
Or is it "Majick Fludde, could be anything really"?
3
OK dave. How about you tell us what YOU think the composition and features of the lower layer should be?
4
Anyway, here's what the paper you quoted has to say:
Quote
The range and distribution of lithofacies in the Mt. Simon reflect deposition during the Upper Cambrian Sauk transgression (Sloss, 1963). The lower Mt. Simon was deposited by broad braided fluvial streams with possible dune fields (Fischietto, 2009; Bowen et al., 2011). Rising sea level produced a broad tidally influenced and widely bioturbated tidal flat sandstone facies associated with migrating barrier island sequences as demonstrated in the middle to upper portions of the Mt. Simon. Increasing sea level led to deposition of more muddy Mt. Simon facies and the marine carbonates and mudstones associated with the Eau Claire Formation, which is regarded as the regional caprock for carbon and gas storage (Person et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2010).
5
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?
IOW, you want to assume your "guess" 'conclusion' has already been concluded. Nice YEC thinking there.
6
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?
Sandstone of different depositional environments and layers, sometimes with layers containing mudstone. As the paper you quoted says.
Quote
Over how large an area?
I supose one can look for actual measurements, but I suppose 'much of Midwestern US" is 'in the ballpark', as you'd say. So?
Quote
What is the average thickness?
Again, no numbers but, if it varies from say, 300 feet to a couple thousand, the "average thickness" doesn't say much, does it?
Quote
How flat is it?"
Again, how 'flat' would a range of 300-2000 feet make it?

Quote
There.

I hope that sentence structure makes all your inner voices sing joyfully in unison.
I imagine that, inside your head, there's an entire choir of little daves, constantly chanting "I'm right".
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'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"??
Do you have any reason to disagree with the VERY NEXT statement?
Quote
The range of depositional environments yields a heterogeneous formation with varying porosity, permeability, and mechanical properties.
8
Now dave imagines he has 'convinced' others. His "socratification" is almost complete.

How long before he starts talking about "stages"?
9
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 incorrect 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.
Oh, so you're just going to ignore the whole history of your made up stories about all the sandstone being connected?
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=2546831#post2546831
Quote from: Dave 'It's not based on that article' Hawkins
Here's a nice picture of the St Peter Sandstone ... of which - I think - the Tapeats is a small subunit ... http://www.icr.org/article/st-peter-sandstone/ ... again ... from ICR because I can't find it in any mainstream (aka fairy tale) pubs. Actually, to say the Tapeats is a "subunit" might be misleading ... The "Tapeats" appears not to be a "unit" of anything at all. What we really have is "The St Peter Sandstone" (why did St Peter get the honor?) and what we call "Tapeats" seems to be simply a small area of this visible in the Grand Canyon.
But, really, Dave? Who the fuck do you think cares which made up ICR article you happen to be referring to at any given moment? Do you see any references to actual research in this article either? http://www.icr.org/article/geological-provincialism/
No? So what difference do you think it makes to my point? Seriously, I'm asking, because you're acting like you've made some sort of serious refutation here. Do you actually believe that, or are you just putting on a show because you know I'm right and you have nothing of substance to say in response?
Obedient lemming liking dave pwnage
10
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Stable genius
11
On a somewhat unrelated note (and since we've previously talked about things that disprove a global flood all by themselves)...

http://twistedsifter.com/2013/10/cal-orko-wall-in-bolivia-covered-in-dinosaur-tracks/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
"It was unique climate fluctuations that made the region a palaeontological honey pot. The creatures' feet sank into the soft shoreline in warm damp weather, leaving marks that were solidified by later periods of drought. Wet weather then returned, sealing the prints below mud and sediment. The wet-dry pattern was repeated seven times, preserving multiple layers of prints. The cherry on the cake was added when tectonic activity pushed the flat ground up to a brilliant viewing angle - as if nature was aware of its tourism potential."
14
Yes Peez I know. You are like that Junior High kid I told about who was laughing at the joke he didn't understand.
idgi...  In what way is Peez like the kid you so cowardly bullied?
Inb4 "come on, I was a kid, you've all been kids and bullied other kids like that at some point, if you claim you didn't you're liars"
15
Yes Peez I know. You are like that Junior High kid I told about who was laughing at the joke he didn't understand.
Sometimes I get the impression that the bullied kid trying to fit in was you, Dave.
I've always been of the opinion the bullied new kid in Bluffy's anecdote was Bluffy himself. He's constantly displaying projection.
I actually hope he's projecting and it was him. Otherwise he's one of the bullies.
17
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
He should have given it a nice kiss too. With tongue. I bet he was thinking it.

Too bad Alzheimer's hasn't advanced that much yet.
18
To be "fair" to the Trump administration, those have been responses to different parts of the problem. For example: Nielsen's answer here:


isn't technically saying separation doesn't happen. It's saying that separation happens in cases where people cross the border first, illegally - not in cases where people do come to ports of entry. On the other hand, they are claiming that separation in some cases has been happening since before Trump was president.

To be actually fair, each of these sacks of shit were obviously disingenuously failing to address the problem.
Lousy liars though. I mean, this "period!" thing has been their 'tell' since Spicer.
19
Quote
Canada is monitoring the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's "zero-tolerance" migrant policy -- which has led to the forcible detention of thousands of children -- to determine if the U.S. remains a safe country for asylum seekers.
Global outrage is growing over Trump's hardline approach to people crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico -- a policy that puts adults through the criminal justice system while sending their children to detention camps. The Trump administration also has eliminated the option of citing a risk of domestic or gang violence as grounds to seek protection.

Critics are calling on Canada to urgently respond by suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States, but Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said the government will analyze the situation to determine the impact of the Trump administration's policy on due process, appeals rights and migrants' ability to make asylum claims.

...


NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said the developments south of the border underscore the fact that the U.S. is no longer a 'safe third country'.
She called it "astounding" that the Liberal government would consider keeping Canada in an agreement with a country that is flagrantly flouting international law on the rights of refugees and children.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trump-border-immigration-crackdown-1.4711030
as if to underscore Canada's point, today is the day we chose to announce our withdrawal from the UN human rights commission.
Most appropriate and consistent thing this administration has done so far.
20
Nothing in the wiki reference you provided refers to the origin of species (and higher levels).

Care to try again?
Worth repeating.
21
A Global Flood model is the only reasonable conclusion when examining ALL the data!

So you have a Global Flood model? Let's hear it.

Hey, not so fast! It's not THAT easy to try and model a Global Flood using ALL that data!
22
Nothing in the wiki reference you provided refers to the origin of species (and higher levels).

Care to try again?
23
I must say that you folks are a laugh. You speak so arrogantly but do not support your posts with references. But no doubt you will have some insult or distraction.
Another post without quotes. If it didn't talk about "us folks" I would be really worried.
24
Consistency had never been dave's forte. Well, except being consistently wrong.
25
On a side note...
I had the keys to a supersonic AF jet for almost 10 years, remember?  I could fly anywhere I wanted for free.
Wow.
I had no idea the Air Force handed over the keys to supersonic jets to pilots, and told them to go ahead and fly anywhere they wanted to go.
Sounds like something Scott Pruitt might want to look into should the stench of his corruption get too stifling for even the trumpublicans.
Hahahahaha!