Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Whatever understanding I developed then is all I have to work from and that has been steadily degrading so I can't do much more than offer pithy one-liners nowadays.

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 - Martin.au

1

I don't think any mainstream scientists think that any basal Cambrian Sandstone is aeolian
This is incorrect. A correct statement is that you have no idea. However, Aeolian sandstone at the base of the Cambrian would falsify your claims, yes?

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.

Lol.
It's funny as hell watching Dave trying to force fit reality to match his imagination.
Dave, there are sandstones in the Precambrian too. The Cambrian is defined by a change in fossil assemblages. Not by a change in sedimentary rock types.
2
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.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it.
::)  I'll leave that to actual, you know, geologists.
good for you. If you can point me to one of them that has done it, please do.

You mean the many, many times I've posted the actual scientific law that describes the process?
3
I'm suggesting that there is an extremely large layer in North America. I'm guessing perhaps  two or three million square miles in areal extent. And at the moment I'm trying to get more accurate information about it by piecing together all these various names of basal Cambrian sandstones.
There is no evidence that all "basal Cambrian sandstone" is one layer. You have posted some evidence strongly suggesting they are not one layer.
sure there is. Even you say that it was one Marine transgression that deposited it.  Look again at your own geologic Evolution Maps which I posted. On this point we agree. Our main point of disagreement is how long this one single Marine transgression took to form the deposit.

You say millions of years. I say less than one year.

Do you know what a marine transgression is?  And a regression?
Yes of course. Do you?

So what is it?
a transgression is where the sea Rises and covers the land. A regression is where it lowers and uncovers the land.  Jesus Christ.

Oooh. He's so close to getting it.
Two questions Dave. Lets see if we can get you back to where you were several years back, when you bailed once the reality set in.
1) Where is sand commonly found.
2) Yeah, it's the beach. Now where does the beach go as sea level rises and covers the land?
4
Dave, is your "hypothesis" - that your flud laid down sandstone as it's first layer on top of the Precambrian basement rocks - falsifiable by a "black swan" eg: rocks at the Cambrian boundary that aren't sandstone?
5
This is another case where Dave decided what was true and what he believed BEFORE looking at the evidence or even knowing what is there.

Now he's trying to do some historical revisionism by attempting to gaslight us into thinking he's just an unbiased observer, searching for the Truth.

Dave. Are you trying to fool yourself? No one here is fooled by your obvious mcobvious attempts to present yourself as a legitimate scientist.

Are there any examples where he hasn't started from that first point?
6
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?
8
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is a completely oblivious idiot.

I'm thinking she's being manipulated by psychopathic trolls. This feels like a trump/Miller idea to infuriate da libruls.
9
Yes I see the problem quite clearly. No mainstream geologist wants to look at the big picture because of the obvious implications.

Well that's BS.
10
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.

It's not even on zombie TR. It's from the last year or so. Possibly several times on this forum.
11
Economic history books of the future will have chapters on Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Dave Hawkins.
The Dave Hawkins one will be written in Giant Colored Font

Comic sans seems appropriate.
12
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.
13
I'm an INTP.  Read up on them.  I suck at many things.  But I'm really good at a few things.

Bahahahahaaa. No.
Oh come on, Martin, Bluffy is pretty good at sucking. He even admits as much.

I'm just laughing that the master salesman who is good at selling things to rubes, thinks he's an intp.
It wasn't my idea that I am an INTP. I was told that by a nephew who is a health professional. And I'm not a master salesman ... just managed to become pretty good.

You're like, the exact opposite of intp.
14
I'm an INTP.  Read up on them.  I suck at many things.  But I'm really good at a few things.

Bahahahahaaa. No.
Oh come on, Martin, Bluffy is pretty good at sucking. He even admits as much.

I'm just laughing that the master salesman who is good at selling things to rubes, thinks he's an intp.
15
I'm an INTP.  Read up on them.  I suck at many things.  But I'm really good at a few things.

Bahahahahaaa. No.
16
That sort of thing makes me loose my mind. :D
17
One of the (many) things I admire about Pingu is her tendency toward clarity.  If you pay attention to her arguments, then either you end up agreeing with her or else you end up with a clearer idea of why you disagree with her.  Both outcomes are good.
Agreed (of course). It's easy to follow her arguments, because they mostly take very little previous knowledge or independent reasoning for granted, but build up her case in tight, logical steps.

Which of course results in some hilarious outcomes. eg: The C14 thread from a few months back, when Dave finally figured out that he'd walked right off the cliff edge. :D
18
One of the (many) things I admire about Pingu is her tendency toward clarity.  If you pay attention to her arguments, then either you end up agreeing with her or else you end up with a clearer idea of why you disagree with her.  Both outcomes are good.

Agreed. I really wish I had the tolerance, clear mindedness and focus that Pingu demonstrates.
19
Might have taken a shot at a fish. It is what they do. :D
20
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Rare bird sighting.
Well, look who I found in the middle of suburban Adelaide, where they aren't supposed to exist. Osprey are rare and endangered in South Australia, with a small number along the west coast, and around KI. Having one fly up to me in the suburbs was.............surprising!



21
Why would a libertarian want to protect your famile, freedom, finances and future???
22
I find those films fascinating. A train wreck, but a very interesting train wreck (exception being Wonder Woman, which while flawed is still a good film).
23
LOL! And Dave calls me a manipulative bitch.

Way to spin three different directions at once, Dave.

Pitch, roll AND yaw.

And in Dave's case, followed shortly by "Splut!"
24
Deadpool 2. :D

It was fun. :D