Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Athletic Choreographed Fantasy Display

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


This is Morris's map of basal Cambrian sandstone. The question to ask is ... "is there actual basal Cambrian sandstone in the locations indicated by the map?"
Pulling forward bc the page rolled over.
I see one problem. The area to the Northwest of Hudson's Bay, not including the offshore islands, is the Canadian Shield. No sandstone. But a little of Morris's map up there is definitely on the Canadian Shield.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canadian-Shield

Maybe I'll knock off an overlay map tomorrow.


Morris shows some in Greenland ...

Here's the description from a random paper I found ...
Quote
III. PALEOZOIC FORMATIONS

     

NORTH GREENLAND

     

Cambrian

        In northern Greenland the Cambrian is known only from the north coast

of Inglefield Land, the southeastern part of Washington Land, and Peary Land.

        The sequence of strata is as follows:

        Lower Cambrian . ( 1 ) Wulff River formation (thickness 30m.): conglomerates,

glauconitiferous, calcareous sandstones, and limestones with Botsfordia ,

Kutorgina , Salterella , Strenuella , Olenellus , and Wanneria . Pebbles in the

basal conglomerate contain species of an older fauna, Acrothele and Micromitra .

https://collections.dartmouth.edu/arctica-beta/html/EA01-16.html
3
Oh yeah ... an overlay map with the states and provinces would be awesome!
4


This is Morris's map of basal Cambrian sandstone. The question to ask is ... "is there actual basal Cambrian sandstone in the locations indicated by the map?"
Pulling forward bc the page rolled over.
5
Guys.

Chill.

Morris made a map.  He claims it represents Basal Cambrian Sandstone in N. America. 

I have no reason to doubt him ... do you?  I will keep slogging through the extremely hodge podge literature to try to verify it though. 

If his map is fairly accurate ... and if the thickness is indeed 100 feet to 2000 ft or even 3000 feet ... and it's all pretty much continuous ... then that is extremely interesting ...

... for reasons I don't expect you to understand because of your anti-science mindset.
6
Rick I see that you agree that Morris used mainstream data to create his map. That's all we're interested in determining at this point. You are running ahead too quickly.

If you agree that this map pretty accurately depicts basal Cambrian sandstone in North America then that's a great step.
7
And all I can say for sure at this point is that I have indeed found sandstone in the geological literature in some locations indicated by the map.
8


This is Morris's map of basal Cambrian sandstone. The question to ask is ... "is there actual basal Cambrian sandstone in the locations indicated by the map?"
9
Either Morris's maps are accurate or they're not. Simple as that. Nothing else matters. He can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care and if his maps are accurate then I will use them. If they are not I will repudiate them.
10
Do you care that Newton believed in alchemy? Or Bible prophecy? Hell no. You care about his laws of motion. Why can't you apply this same methodology to Morris? It's baffling to me.
11
For once in your life focus on the fucking data and quit bellyaching about all the extraneous info.
12
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It doesn't mean NECESSARILY that the data is "wrong" - but provides no assurance whatsoever that the map is based on any actual data.

Why do you think that time after time, ICR fail to give any references for their claims?  It's not as though Morris doesn't provide SOME references.  He does.  To Berthault for instance.

But not to this.

BTW, the book is a religious book.  It tells the reader that if scientists are right, then that means that God lied.

It's a tract, Dave.  That map is from a religious tract.
you are at least as religious as he is because you are constantly preaching. Just stop the preaching and stick with actual data and accurate statements. An accurate statement regarding his book and those Maps is that we don't know his sources. But the sandstones I have investigated give me no reason to doubt that his map is accurate. Do you see any section of his map where basal Cambrian Sandstone obviously does not exist? I don't.

It's a religious tract.  That is an accurate statement. 


Look at it:



There NO reason to think either map accurate, or even approximate.  There's every reason to suppose that it's written to reassure any wavering YECers that they don't have to worry about geology, that Morris et al have it covered.

I don't care if he puts his map in the middle of the Koran. It's the map I'm interested in not the Koran. And it's the fact that John Morris is a geologist so that means there's a pretty good chance that he probably got the information from a reliable source. Obviously we cannot Bank on it until we check it out and confirm it, but it's a pretty strong hypothesis that he didn't just pull it out of his ass. You really are an idiot if you don't get this.
13
Looks as if the Mt. Simon varies quite a bit in thickness, some significantly thicker than 2,000 feet.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583616308003
Excellent map.  I wish we had one like this for all of N. America.  Why is ICR the only organization that has produced such a map?  (Which you guys say is bunk, which I doubt) (One of the best signs that something is true is if TR members say it's bunk)

Dave, this is a really important post of yours.  Please listen to me. I want to point you in the direction of a systematic way of evaluating whether ICR is bunk other than on the basis that TR members say so, i.e. by tracing to the origin of those maps.

Geological strata are largely hidden, as you know, and only visible where they outcrop, or when geologists drill out cores.  So all those maps are inevitably based on quite sparse data.  The are models that fit the data - very litle of what you see on any of those maps represents a direct measurement. They are inferences based on what data the geologists do have.

John Baumgardner shows the two maps AND tells us where he got them, and what they are supposed to represent, which is helpful:

Quote


Figure 12. Distribution of the St. Peter Sandstone and its equivalents in North America. This formation is the basal unit of the Tippecanoe Megasequence. (From Morris 2012, 111)

Note that this map does NOT claim to be the sandstone basal to the Sauk/Cambrian, but of sandstone basal to the Tippecanoe.

He also gives the other map:
Quote from: John Baumgardner.


Figure 10. Map showing the distribution of the lower Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents across North America. (From Morris 2012, 149)

So that's the one you are currently investigating.

Both maps appear to be from Morris, 2012: The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth's Geologic History, again published by ICR.  This book, according to its foreword, claims to be an "update" to Morris and Whitcombe's The Genesis Flood (John Morris seems to be Henry Morris's son).

So in the interests of TRUTH, I got hold of Morris's book.  Both maps are indeed there.

Morris's caption to the second is:

Quote from: John Morris
The Tapeats Sandstone, the lowest member in the Sauk Megasequence, covers a semi-continental area and is now understood by many geologists to be due to a series of dynamic underwater mudflows.  Creationists consider it to be one of the earliest deposts of the great Flood.  Catastrophic deposition on a regional scale equals evidence for the global Flood.

There is NO reference to the data on which the map is based. There is NO reference to where he got the map, so for copyright reasons we can assume it was drawn by the publishers (ICR) or Morris.  And in the text he simply asserts, with NO references that:

Quote from: John Morris
Even though Grand Canyon might seem large when you're there, it covers only the northwestern corner of Arizona.  Mapping the lateral extent of the Tapeats, however, produces a surprise, for the "pancake" layer extends across Arizona into New Mexico up into Utah, then into Colorado, and farther. It is reliably correlated with beds in Montana, Wyoming, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, up into Canada, and around into Greenland and Europ.  At least continental in scope, it can be labeled hemisphreical, far different from any local deposit uniformity might propose.

The bolded part contains not one single reference to any data or geology paper whatsoever. 

Why not?  If ICR aren't lying, why don't they reference the data? Why don't they write papers, even if they only publish them on ICR, for the benefit of scientifically minded or geologist creationists, WHAT those data are, and where to find them?

And then ask yourself: who is ICR? What is its mission?




Wow. I'm impressed! This is some fantastic sleuth work. The fact that you actually went out and obtained that book itself is impressive.

And yes, I too would like to know where he got the data. Which is what I've been trying to do by piecing together whatever data I can come up with from here and there.

My guess is that Morris did what I am trying to do but according to you he didn't list his sources. Okay. Bad on him. But that doesn't mean necessarily that the information is wrong. Just that it might be wrong. But based on my initial searching, it doesn't appear to be wrong so far.

It doesn't mean NECESSARILY that the data is "wrong" - but provides no assurance whatsoever that the map is based on any actual data.

Why do you think that time after time, ICR fail to give any references for their claims?  It's not as though Morris doesn't provide SOME references.  He does.  To Berthault for instance.

But not to this.

BTW, the book is a religious book.  It tells the reader that if scientists are right, then that means that God lied.

It's a tract, Dave.  That map is from a religious tract.
you are at least as religious as he is because you are constantly preaching. Just stop the preaching and stick with actual data and accurate statements. An accurate statement regarding his book and those Maps is that we don't know his sources. But the sandstones I have investigated give me no reason to doubt that his map is accurate. Do you see any section of his map where basal Cambrian Sandstone obviously does not exist? I don't.
14
Looks as if the Mt. Simon varies quite a bit in thickness, some significantly thicker than 2,000 feet.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583616308003
Excellent map.  I wish we had one like this for all of N. America.  Why is ICR the only organization that has produced such a map?  (Which you guys say is bunk, which I doubt) (One of the best signs that something is true is if TR members say it's bunk)

Dave, this is a really important post of yours.  Please listen to me. I want to point you in the direction of a systematic way of evaluating whether ICR is bunk other than on the basis that TR members say so, i.e. by tracing to the origin of those maps.

Geological strata are largely hidden, as you know, and only visible where they outcrop, or when geologists drill out cores.  So all those maps are inevitably based on quite sparse data.  The are models that fit the data - very litle of what you see on any of those maps represents a direct measurement. They are inferences based on what data the geologists do have.

John Baumgardner shows the two maps AND tells us where he got them, and what they are supposed to represent, which is helpful:

Quote


Figure 12. Distribution of the St. Peter Sandstone and its equivalents in North America. This formation is the basal unit of the Tippecanoe Megasequence. (From Morris 2012, 111)

Note that this map does NOT claim to be the sandstone basal to the Sauk/Cambrian, but of sandstone basal to the Tippecanoe.

He also gives the other map:
Quote from: John Baumgardner.


Figure 10. Map showing the distribution of the lower Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents across North America. (From Morris 2012, 149)

So that's the one you are currently investigating.

Both maps appear to be from Morris, 2012: The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth's Geologic History, again published by ICR.  This book, according to its foreword, claims to be an "update" to Morris and Whitcombe's The Genesis Flood (John Morris seems to be Henry Morris's son).

So in the interests of TRUTH, I got hold of Morris's book.  Both maps are indeed there.

Morris's caption to the second is:

Quote from: John Morris
The Tapeats Sandstone, the lowest member in the Sauk Megasequence, covers a semi-continental area and is now understood by many geologists to be due to a series of dynamic underwater mudflows.  Creationists consider it to be one of the earliest deposts of the great Flood.  Catastrophic deposition on a regional scale equals evidence for the global Flood.

There is NO reference to the data on which the map is based. There is NO reference to where he got the map, so for copyright reasons we can assume it was drawn by the publishers (ICR) or Morris.  And in the text he simply asserts, with NO references that:

Quote from: John Morris
Even though Grand Canyon might seem large when you're there, it covers only the northwestern corner of Arizona.  Mapping the lateral extent of the Tapeats, however, produces a surprise, for the "pancake" layer extends across Arizona into New Mexico up into Utah, then into Colorado, and farther. It is reliably correlated with beds in Montana, Wyoming, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, up into Canada, and around into Greenland and Europ.  At least continental in scope, it can be labeled hemisphreical, far different from any local deposit uniformity might propose.

The bolded part contains not one single reference to any data or geology paper whatsoever. 

Why not?  If ICR aren't lying, why don't they reference the data? Why don't they write papers, even if they only publish them on ICR, for the benefit of scientifically minded or geologist creationists, WHAT those data are, and where to find them?

And then ask yourself: who is ICR? What is its mission?




Wow. I'm impressed! This is some fantastic sleuth work. The fact that you actually went out and obtained that book itself is impressive.

And yes, I too would like to know where he got the data. Which is what I've been trying to do by piecing together whatever data I can come up with from here and there.

My guess is that Morris did what I am trying to do but according to you he didn't list his sources. Okay. Bad on him. But that doesn't mean necessarily that the information is wrong. Just that it might be wrong. But based on my initial searching, it doesn't appear to be wrong so far.
15
I guess any conclusions then on whether there's any Evidence for The Flood will have to wait till Hawkins assembles all the maps of all the basal Cambrian sandstone in North America. Actually in the entire world; we're talking about a The global flood.
Correct.

At this point the global flood is only a hypothesis. The leading hypothesis with the most promise. But just a hypothesis nonetheless.
16
Are you sure they were beaches?  As in beaches we are familiar with?

No you are not sure at all.

You are just guessing.
17
I noticed that Your Buddy Sundance does not talk about NK that much, btw. How come?
nothing much to talk about. Trump did what he said he would do and it's going well.
18
Kindly go fuck yourself.

You are the one making claims, get off your lazy lying arse and back them up yourself.
Lol

As I thought, you have no idea how to get the map I'm talking about. You just want to pretend that you do.

What a fucking fraud you are.
19
There's a really obscure organisation that might just be able to help you out.

Not nearly as prestigious or as knowledgeable as ICR, can't have everything, but might have a hint or two.

As it happens, I also happen to know David has been pointed toward it before. Of course it's understandable David could forget the existence of such an insignificant body, anyone could do it.

They are called The United States Geological Survey.

Yes, quite an odd name for a bunch of geologists, it's hardly surprising you haven't managed to find them yourself.

Even more surprising, for some reason they have a whole heap of geological maps, at all sorts of scales, covering the entire of the US, and a heap of other places. Even better they are all available for free download.

Imagine that.
Wonderful.

Kindly post a Lamotte sandstone thickness map for the whole state of Missouri would you?

TIA
20
Quote
Canada, EU and Germany Signal Compliance With President Trump Trade Demands...
Posted on June 21, 2018   by sundance
This win needs to be sipped slowly for maximum enjoyment. 
First, we would draw your attention to May 23rd, when President Trump announced an instruction to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to begin a Section 301 review of the auto industry a week prior to the implementation of the Steel and Aluminum tariffs.

At the time when all media were discussing other 'matters' CTH pointed out the strategy that was visible in the Auto-Sector.  China, the EU (specifically Germany), and Canada were the strategic trade targets in the approach.  About a week later, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland snarkily announced her "sisterhood in trade" with EU Trade Minister Cecilia Malström, and how together they formed a strategy and were going to block President Trump.  They were very pleased with themselves (please watch).

Freeland and Prime Minister Justin from Canada, then strategized with Emmanuel from France and Angela from Germany on how they were going to use the G7 to embarrass President Trump on trade conflict issues via the summit; and subsequent use of media press conferences.  The entire thing back-fired, bigly.  President Trump announced the tariffs would continue until trade reciprocity improved.

It's been two weeks since the best-laid-scheme was attempted.  In the interim, the international audience has watched President Trump's unrelenting approach toward China.

In the grand-trade-conflict; China is a big fight none of the sideline players would ever attempt.  However, the downstream consequence of the international trade team watching intently is their realization that President Trump is not bluffing.  You can hear the proverbial gulps from across the Atlantic; and the tremors up North.

Back to May 23rd, 2018, and remember the auto tariff proposal.  President Trump has made it clear that he's more than willing to use reciprocal trade tariffs against all trade partners in getting fair and balanced trade.  He ain't bluffing.

Well, guess what just happened?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/21/canada-eu-and-germany-signal-compliance-with-president-trump-trade-demands/#more-150859

21
Dave, just as a matter of interest: how how would you set about constructing a map of all the sandstone that rests on pre-Cembrian rock in North America? 
The only way I know how to do it - which is what I'm currently trying to do - is search for maps like the ones recently posted. 

And for bonus points: GIVEN that you think that if there was such a map, it would show a vast, uniformly thin, pancake flat layer, where are you getting the information that that is what is there?


From geologists, obviously.  Usually the type looking for water or fossil fuel resources.
22
Where's the billionzofdeadthings Dave?
Worth discussing, but not now.  We have to maintain a narrow focus if we want to make progress.
23
There's this, but it's so small ... I'd like to see the whole state ...

24
Looks as if the Mt. Simon varies quite a bit in thickness, some significantly thicker than 2,000 feet.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583616308003
Excellent map.  I wish we had one like this for all of N. America.  Why is ICR the only organization that has produced such a map?  (Which you guys say is bunk, which I doubt) (One of the best signs that something is true is if TR members say it's bunk)
A logical question to ask when looking at this map would be ...

"What about Wisconsin?  It's sitting right there atop Illinois.  We should find some basal Cambrian sandstone there, should we not?"

But I can't find a decent map.

All I can find is stuff like this ...
Quote
Geologic units in Wisconsin (state in United States)
Cambrian, undivided (Cambrian) at surface, covers 31 % of this area
Sandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations

...

Cambrian, undivided
Sandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
State   Wisconsin
Name   Cambrian, undivided
Geologic age   Cambrian
Lithologic constituents   
Major
Sedimentary > Clastic > SandstoneSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
Minor
Sedimentary > Clastic > Mudstone > ShaleSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
Sedimentary > Carbonate > DolostoneSandstone with some dolomite and shale, undivided; includes Trempealeau, Tunnel City, and Elk Mound Formations
References   
Mudrey, M.G., Jr., Brown, B.A., and Greenberg, J.K., 1982, Bedrock Geologic Map of Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Geological and Natural History Survey, scale 1:1,000,000.

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?state=WI
25
http://isgs.illinois.edu/ilstrat/index.php/Mt._Simon_Sandstone:



Quote
The Mt. Simon Sandstone, although not exposed, underlies all of Illinois except in local areas where it failed to cover hills on the Precambrian surface. It ranges from less than 500 to 2600 feet thick, with the greatest thickness in northeastern Illinois.
So the ICR article Dave adores so much made at least a 23% error in the thickness range of the magical layer. Excellence in scholarship.
Another nice map.  Again ... I wish I had one like this for all of N. America.