Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: kill urself

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 - borealis

1
Come for the multibillion dollar corporate marijuana growers about to corner the global market and develop cannabis whisky, stay for the stunning pics of massive all white greenhouses.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/canada-marijuana-justin-trudeau-jeff-sessions-trump-canopy-pot/
2
1) It's mainly sandstone - sometimes interlayered with mudstone
2) It was laid down by water - mostly during transgressions/regressions
3) There a lot of it in N. America, perhaps covering 3/4 of the land surface - I don't think quite 3/4ths - maps are a bit deceptive and there is a LOT of Canadian shield (8 million sq.km.) and Arctic islands, not to mention the rocky mountains.
4) It is named differently in different parts of N. Am., Potsdam, Lamotte, Mt. Simon, Tapeats, etc. - Those weren't, afaict, necessarily laid down during the same transgressions/regressions.
5) But each of these names refers to "basal Cambrian sandstone" ... the word "basal" defined previously.


I'm wondering if you're able to interpret that black/yellow/white diagram Pingu keeps posting, as it has no labels and you may not understand what it's describing. Ask her, she is better at explaining than I am.


Essentially, you should try to grasp that these inundations and subsidences of water levels happened repeatedly, not just once. Beaches were exposed, covered, exposed again over millions of years. Sometimes that may have happened relatively fast, sometimes very slowly.

I've seen beaches hundreds of years old disappear in one winter season, the sand shifted out by ice in a winter storm, exposing an underlying rock beach. And if you dug down, removing the rock layer, you find another sand beach, very compacted and hard, but still sand. And below that, more layers of rock and sand until you reach bedrock. But that's on a stormy Atlantic shore, not a calm sheltered inland sea.
3
I doubt that jacket even belongs to Melania Trump (the unphotoshopped version). I think it was borrowed, purposely or not. It is a several years old Zara design that cost $39. retail. It's outside her normal range of dress modes and purchases.

(Zara being the company that has sold (and pulled after being called on them) a purse with a print design including flowers and swasticas, a striped baby shirt with a yellow 'sherriff' star appliqued on the chest, and a shirt with a stylized watermelon eating black figure on the front. Zara stores have been accused of paying and promoting black employees less than white ones, of referring to black customers as 'special' as a euphemism for 'follow them around the store', and of using sweatshops to make their clothing, and of stealing multiple designs from multiple small designers.)
4
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dave, it might not be obvious to you but this based on the layers of rock that are present in the ground.  Not just someone's flight of fancy to support their pet theory like the ICR sandstone map.


QFT.

Dave, your 'investigation' here looks ridiculous. You have no basic geology education, or none that is discernible from your approach to this topic. It appears you've never encountered even elementary school or high school texts on the subject. You don't know what most of the terms even mean. You're skimming material that you don't understand and pulling quotes and figures you think might help you, but don't when examined. When your mistaken conclusions are pointed out, you don't admit fault, you just offer incredulity based on your own misunderstandings.

Your problem is that reality does not match your YEC belief. It never will. Rocks don't lie, but ICR does, repeatedly. YEC, globally, is a fringe belief, precisely because it fails the truth test every time.
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 pieced together all this this disparate information into a coherent map of some sort.

You've been shown coherent maps. They look as one would expect, given a large inland sea with multiple basins. No sandstone occurs on the highlands nor on the enormous shield.


100 to 2000 feet thickness is not 'incredibly thin and flat', and the extent of the deposits is irrelevant to their thickness. You could, as has been pointed out, as easily say that the earth's Ocean is 'incredibly shallow', given its areal extent.


The USA is not the whole planet. It isn't even all of North America. Much of the 'areal extent' of Canada does not have these same sandstone layers. Much of the rest of the world does not, either, though some places have similar geological traces because 500 million years ago sea levels were much higher than they are today.


Many factors influence sea levels, from glaciation to plate tectonics. A 1 year global flood explains nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
6
Nonsense. The sky is the den of Muin, the she bear. Every spring she wakes and comes down to inhabit a bear body on earth, is hunted and eventually killed, then her life spirit flies back to her den and sleeps all winter, waking up again the next spring.

Muin wouldn't sleep in an old cold skull.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
7
Bangor is the same place they were interrogating people getting on a bus.  Why the fuck is Bangor, Maine a point of interest?

Shoe-shopping Canadians sneaking across the border. Some of them stay and become a burden on your society..
8
Quote
The client meetings have been crushing. One man sobs, asking how his small child could defend himself in a detention facility. One cries so uncontrollably, he is hardly able to speak. Question after crying question piles up from one client to the next. One man, short and large, sat hunched over for most of our conversation, weeping. Through tears, he stuttered and glanced up at me as he tried to explain what happened. The worst moment came when I held up a sheet with my office's phone number and some other information. He said, with embarrassment, that he couldn't read. The plight of these clients is compounded when a client can't spell his missing child's name, or even his own, in English or Spanish.
I have to explain to these parents that I might never be able to answer their questions. I can't promise that they'll be able to speak to their children, or know their whereabouts or who is taking care of them, or whether they'll be sent back home without their kids.

...


During the hearing, the federal prosecutor puts an agent on the stand to give an account of what's happened in the case, and then I am able to cross-examine. You would never know from the agent's testimony that we're dealing with a parent who has been separated from a child. That is not mentioned in the complaint. The prosecutor asks no questions about the child. At no point do they discuss the child. The child might as well not exist.
During cross-examination of one agent, I asked if she was aware that my client was arrested with his 4-year-old daughter. She said no. I was shocked, but this is the game. I asked whether she was the lead investigator, and if she had talked to field agents in this case. She said yes. I asked if it had become known to her that my client had his 4-year-old child with him. Yes, she said, but added that she didn't know the child was a 4-year-old female.

...

This is how it goes. I ask about the child; the government objects; the judge forces the agent to answer. The answer is always the same.
"Do you know the location of the child?" No or unknown.
"Did you provide my client with information as to the location of his child?" No or unknown.
"Did you provide my client with any information as to how he could go about finding his child?" No or unknown.
In a rare instance, one agent said a child was in a particular city -- one far from El Paso. But of course, no details were known regarding the child's specific location.
At another hearing before a different judge, as one of my colleagues asked the agent on the stand about the whereabouts of my client's child, the prosecutor objected to the relevance of the questions. The judge turned on the prosecutor, demanding to know why this wasn't relevant. At one point, he slammed his hand on the desk, sending a pen flying. This type of emotional display is unheard of in federal court. I can't understand this, the judge said. If someone at the jail takes your wallet, they give you a receipt. They take your kids, and you get nothing? Not even a slip of paper?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/families-will-no-longer-be-separated-at-the-border-but-where-are-my-clients-kids/2018/06/20/9d9e59a0-74b6-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.58a319419fd9

Whole article is beyond awful.
9
Out standing in his field, I see.
10
Littering his posts with 'friggin's and over-the-top ALL-CAPS expressions of incredulity are unmistakable clues that Hawkins is just doiing his well-rehearsed Stupid Dance and has no interest in actually learning anything.

Yeah. But this was just so fractally stupid:

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!!!

He's fundamentally (in at least two senses of the word) unable to either observe or understand after observing everyday physical phenomena that most people, including people who've never cracked a geology book, can observe and make common sense of in terms of effects over time. It's a great big, probably self-inflicted, blind spot in the way he interacts with the world.
11
Quote
Yes I see the problem quite clearly. No mainstream geologist wants to look at the big picture because of the obvious implications. ~ DH


Here's where Dave careens wildly off the rails. "Mainstream geologists" are just 'geologists.

In the USA alone, there are 120,000 to 200,000 geologists. In the rest of the world, there are several hundred thousand more geologists.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_paleontologists_are_there_today

So Dave thinks these hundreds of thousands of geologists, from 200+ countries, speaking dozens of different languages, belonging to a dozen different religions or none, have a secret guilty conspiracy to falsify their findings so that a tiny bunch of American creationists won't find out that this multitude of scientists knows there is proof of a young earth and Noah's Flood.

I'm utterly floored by the logic.
12
Anyone else get the feeling this entire thread is just Dave's way of coping with the cognitive dissonance produced by the Trump administration's ongoing crimes against humanity? "Ripping babies from their parents and putting kids in cages, you say? Uh...HOW ABOUT THAT GLOBAL FLOOD, GUYS?"

I doubt he even knows. All he's seen on the topic is alt-right apologetics and excuses and reacharounds.

And now it looks like ICE or the caregivers have been drugging these kids to the eyeballs to quiet them down and keep them sleepy and docile. It just gets worse and worse.
13
I can't even see how a global flood even starts to make sense as an explanation for geology, and I honestly don't think Dave does either. He just believes it does.

Saner creationists do just that: just believe there was a flood. Any lack of evidence is filed under Mysterious Ways and they go on with their lives, uninterested in the controversy
Yeah. I've wondered before why Dave is so concerned with his religious beliefs being backed up by evidence. The fact that he knows on some level that they aren't seems to cause him no end of consternation. He's been at this windmill tilting online for over a decade for no good reason I can figure out.

I guess part of it is that he just likes arguing? And he also seems to like being the only one arguing a certain position against a lot of people who argue the opposite. Just the fact of doing that seems to reinforce to him that what he's doing is right, even though he never once manages to demonstrate in any sense that what he's arguing is. It's like his entire personality revolves around this black hole of a martyr complex that he needs to constantly feed. It's always been really, really weird, and it still is.

The euphoria of martyrdom - he's one of God's own warriors here.



Of course, Teresa is not being martyred here and in fact is having a really good time by her own written admission. So - Dave, but more honest.
14
I can't even see how a global flood even starts to make sense as an explanation for geology, and I honestly don't think Dave does either. He just believes it does.

Saner creationists do just that: just believe there was a flood. Any lack of evidence is filed under Mysterious Ways and they go on with their lives, uninterested in the controversy
15
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)
16
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.
Dave and Co seem to envision sandstone being laid down like an enormous sheet of fondant icing over the entire continent.

It's Flood mythology. When the waters calmed, all that suspended silt and sand sank gently to the bottom and formed a sheet - that turned to rock in a very brief time. It is also, of course, North America-centric. And delusional.
17
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
I'm really trying hard to get "justins" going as slang for joints.

Lol, 'justins' is not gonna happen.

'Trudeaus' might - is got that long 'o' ending that lends itself to slang terms.
18
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
The Chr├ętien government was moving toward legalization back in '01 or '02 or thereabouts, but he got a cease-and-desist phone call from Dubya's guys.

I forgot about that.

Technically, we will be in violation of one or two international treaties, as is Uruguay. The US has less ammo now with states legalising mj, but they are technically not in violation because of the federal level prohibition.
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.
20
There's not much joy to be had in pointing out to Dave that those menacing objects confronting him are, indeed, windmills, and no attempt to turn them into rabid evil darwinists is going to change the fact that windmills are real non-sentient workaday structures without volition or intention.

The windmills are there.

The rocks are there.
21
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ... just given different names by region.

They aren't even exactly the same age. Or the same composition.

These sandstones have been mapped extensively. You are swallowing ICR's 'provincial geology' theory whole, without any evidence that geologists actually work that way. Fact: they don't. Geologists are highly motivated to investigate the whole history of the planet through examination of the geological record. Not communicating or correlating information would work against that goal.

The fact that you can look at geological maps that outline the inland sea that formed many of these sandstone deposits, where shallows and depths and ridges and highlands can clearly be seen is a direct refutation of ICR's 'provincialism' notion.

You can look at a modern topological map and still see many of those elevated features, which don't have a sandstone layer, because they were not inundated or subject to aeolian depositions.
22
Dave, you could just copypaste all this from the Zombie TR threads.

You are not treading new ground.
23
I know. :hehe:

I believe taunting was an honourable preliminary to battle in Mediaeval times, so you go, DSA.

Seriously, shame these people as often as possible. Everyone should do it.
24
So DSA = ?
25
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
Almost happened in 1972. We had great hopes then.

Quote
The Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, often referred to as the Le Dain Commission after its chair Dean Gerald Le Dain, was a Canadian government commission that was begun in 1969 and completed its work in 1972.
The recommendations of Gerald Le Dain, Heinz Lehmann and J. Peter Stein included the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis and cultivation for personal use.[1] Marie-Andree Bertrand, writing for a minority view, recommended a policy of legal distribution of cannabis, that cannabis be removed from the Narcotic Control Act (since replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) and that the provinces implement controls on possession and cultivation, similar to those governing the use of alcohol.[2]
The report also recommended that the federal government conduct further research to monitor and evaluate changes in the extent and patterns of the use of cannabis and other drugs, and to explore possible consequences to health, and personal and social behaviour, resulting from the controlled legal distribution of cannabis.
A total of 365 submissions were presented at the hearings and an additional 50 were forwarded to the Commission's office. About 12,000 people attended and participated in these hearings, which included testimony from a number of prominent individuals including John Lennon on 22 December 1969 in Montreal, Quebec.[3]
Although the report was widely praised for its thoroughness and thoughtfulness, its conclusions were largely ignored by the Trudeau Federal government.[4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Dain_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_the_Non-Medical_Use_of_Drugs


Trudeau pere did not like recreational drugs, maybe because Margaret did.