Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • asshole mod badgers

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 - Zombies!

1
So the flood waters were so slow-moving that most people were able to outrun them and reach higher ground all the way up to Day 150, when the flood waters finally covered the highest points and then started to recede? But somehow not a single one managed to survive that single day afloat?
Apparently, there was only one boat?
2
Lol, you expect dave to offer an analysis?
Oh shit, that was probably Dave's idea of a joke. :sadcheer: :no:
3
All Things Considered quite impressive. You may yet earn your PhD at AF Dave University!
If it's anything like Trump University, don't cash the checks.
So what is your analysis?
4

Since Dave has seemingly badgered the thread, above is my favorite badger, from The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  The quote on the gif is from the below.

Quote
Badger: [sighs] All right. Walt Boggis is a chicken farmer, probably the most successful in the world. He weighs the same as a young rhinoceros. He eats three chickens every day for breakfast, lunch, supper, and dessert. That's twelve in total per diem. Nate Bunce is a duck and goose farmer. He's approximately the size of a pot-bellied dwarf, and his chin would be underwater in the shallow end of any swimming pool on the planet. His food is homemade donuts with smashed up goose livers injected into them. Frank Bean is a turkey and apple farmer. He invented his own species of each. He lives on a liquid diet of strong alcoholic cider, which he makes from his apples. He's as skinny as a pencil, as smart as a whip, and possibly the scariest man currently living. The local human children sing a kind of... eerie little rhyme about him. Here, listen to this. [turns on the radio]
Children: [singing] ♪ Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. One fat, one short, one lean. Those horrible crooks so different in looks, were nonetheless equally mean. ♪
Badger: [turns off the radio] In summation, I think you just gotta not do it, man. That's all.
6
Hugely important read ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/16/science/venus-s-remade-face-offers-hints-of-cataclysm.html

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Did you take a picture of your computer screen with your phone? 
We have a bright bulb here.
Dave, ProTip: you are being mocked for your incompetence.
You are startlingly un-selfaware.
7
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
So where are the billionzofdeadthings in the basal Cambriain sandstone of North America?
He's only handling stuff he thinks affirm his beliefs.  He will address stuff that obviously disprove his beliefs later.
Much, much, later.
8
Hugely important read ...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Hugely important read ...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Did you take a picture of your computer screen with your phone? 
Yeah he does that a lot. No idea why.
Because he isn't comfortable in learning even the simplest things.
His profile is clearly still set up as the default, he writes about  "bringing this forward"  "rolling off the page",
The quote function kicked his ass.
Screen grabs are a mystery to him.
He was never a terribly sophisticated computer user, but when he talked about programming a model economy on the other thread, I spat out my cocoa. 
This poor dumb bastard can barely lash up a Excel spreadsheet, and he's claiming he can program an economic simulation?
WTF?
LOL, stay in your lane, tard.
9
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Nope.

Surface rupturing on other solar system bodies appears to be common.  It's a heat release thing.  Therefore we should explore the idea that perhaps this sort of thing might have happened on earth long ago.  If it did, it would explain a lot ... like 2 million square mile super thin, super flat sandstone layers.
Dave that surface rupturing is basically the same as volcanoes on the earth. Nothing to do with your idiot fludde. Nowhere near the scale you're talking about, and that subsurface ocean is not the same as the "fountains of the deep" you insist once existed. They're the equivalent of the mantle.

But as you know nothing about geology or planetary science you don't seem able to grasp this.
Shut up and read.

Especially the NY Times article I posted.
Venus' resurfacing is not like that of the Earth Dave. There's no plate tectonics there. There is plate tectonics on Earth. And its lava that's coming out not water on Venus. Whereas on the outer moons which is what I was explicitly talking about its water because the moons are mostly made of ice, not rock.
Read the fucking article. You still haven't read it.
Shoeing us off to a link, Dave?  If you understand it, break it down and explain it.  Sell us on why we should read it.
10
You are a fraud.  You pretend to be a scientist but you're not interested in science.
As evidenced by... :dunno:
Quote
Go away and quit spamming the board.
Awww... poor dave.  :crai: 
No, you don't get to ban people from a discussion forum.
And you don't get to define as "spam" observations that hurt your feelings.
Quote
Or else stay but start contributing something positive in the way of science.
I contribute far more than you do in the way of science. You define anything that challenges your fantasies as "negative".  You need to grow up.
It's a good time to point out that religious websites cope with this kind of asymmetrical burdens of proof by heavy moderation and bans.
That's how religion works.  It's an echo chamber.
Remember Dave, a person who breaks with their religion is a heretic.
A person who breaks with scientific teachings with a theory that they can 'prove' is a Nobel prize winner.
11
"Catastrophes" have happened on a planetary scale, therefore "THE Global Flood" is real.  ::)


Nope.

Surface rupturing on other solar system bodies appears to be common.  It's a heat release thing.  Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dave, wouldn't that amount of heat boil and sterilize most, if not all of the planet?
12
I really do not understand the strange compulsion to try to make the flood story look scientific. The flood story already requires God to make lots of water to appear and disappear again.

And when I say lots, I mean about three times the amount made up by all the oceans on earth today. After all, it is supposed to have covered the tallest mountains by 15 cubits.

So, if we are looking for evidence for a story where about 900.000.000 square miles of water can appear and disappear again in an eyeblink, why would you place any trust in any sort of physical evidence? Surely it is irrelevant, if we are already dealing with magically appearing and disappearing water? Messing up a few layers of deposits and scattering a few fossils  just to troll scientists is surely childs play by comparison.
Those problems will be settled later. 
Dave will be satisfied with having science priests concede that there is evidence that the water covered the earth, in the form of a uniform thin layer of sandstone.
13
Actually, Vox, I had a spelling brainfart.  :staregonk:
Freud would be pleased, tho.
14
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I WTFed untill I googled:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-really-claim-that-insects-only-have-fou/
Quote
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
wut?

Lol. Told you.

Also the bolded line in that ICR bit is entymological ignorance. If the word means 'beetle', then it seems awkward to pretend it means some other insect. There are lots of beetles that jump/leap, including click beetles (Elateridae ) and flea beetles. And there would be no difference between beetles of Biblical eras and 'modern' beetles. The same vast multitude of beetle species exists today, minus a few extinctions.
The bit about beetles is a tangent, it's not about grasshoppers, as the context indicates it should be.  It's certainly not reinforcing or elaborating the earlier point, as the word 'Furthermore' should indicate.
Also, legs aren't for jumping? Jumping is done with things other than legs, legs are for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," ?
My favorite part is the closing though:"As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!"
15
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

He wouldn't need to look for a gap if he didn't cling to one of the most unreasonable Christianish denominations on the planet. He's fine with grasshoppers having six legs, not four, as are all of them (aside from the really twisted interpretations of what 'four' means in context) Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I WTFed untill I googled:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-really-claim-that-insects-only-have-fou/
Quote
Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated "beetle" actually comes from the verb "to leap," implying a similar leaping insect, not our modern beetle. Thus, the Biblical description of grasshoppers turns out to be exactly anatomically correct. Far from being an embarrassment to Bible believers, this passage bears sterling testimony to the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture. As always, arguments which claim that the Bible is wrong are themselves wrong, and the Bible still stands!
wut?
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.
IOW, "How do you KNOW sand will turn to sandstone? WERE YOU THEEEEERE?"
It's pathetic how transparent he is.
Gotta find a gap for his god.

ETA:  I miss tags.  I would tag this with #ManipulativeBeaches.
17
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.
I wondered where Dave's accusations of women being manipulative came from, they seemed "out of the blue".
Well now it's clear that they are IKYABWAI.  Dave, you are are ham fisted and inept at persuasion/manipulation as you are at humor.

ETA: And Fenrir is spot on with that response.  :stuckup: 
18
If this is what we can expect from Dave Hawkins U, I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a "teacher", Dave.
19
I'm not seeing evidence of a global flood, thread did not deliver, 0/10
20
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You know Dave, if you put as much effort into actually answering questions as you do avoiding them, you'd get a lot more out of participating in this forum, and you would gain a lot more respect.
But as he learned from Pingu and the C14, if he listens and agree to to much, he ends up denying YEC.
He's trying to do it here with to us, but he's so poorly educated, he's eliciting giggles.
21
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'll Grant you I first learned about them from icr.

Well, for some value of "learned" I guess.  You certainly read about them there.  But not even ICR bothers to point out that there are allegedly TWO of these extraordinary pancakes, probably because they hope the punters won't read both articles and notice that they are talking about two quite different strata.

But I learned the specifics of the layer that I'm now interested in - the cambrian basal sandstone - from various mainstream articles on the internet presumably based on geological texts. 

And the "specifics" as you call them don't actually support ICR's claim. And ICR knows this too. So they accuse the geologists of being "provincial". Which is obvious bullshit.  If geologists were "provincial", there would be no talk of Cambrian or Ordovician or Silurian etc layers, no talk of mega sequences, no maps of the N.American craton - the very ones you posted.

So stop dispensing squid ink and schaff and flares and deal with what I've actually posted.

no u
Quote
Coward.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
if they were not being provincial, then they would give the single basal sandstone layer a single name instead of 20 different names.

There is no single layer. Your spectacular failure to produce any evidence for your claim is obvious.

Afdave's Third Law
: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.
You don't have to call it a "single layer" if you don't want to.

However ...

You cannot escape the facts that ...

1) "Cambrian" sandstone lies atop "Pre-Cambrian" basement rock in much of N. America
2) This sandstone (whether multiple layers or a single layer) varies in thickness from approx 100 ft to 2000 ft
3) Nothing I've read indicates that there is any definitive demarcation between say the "Lamotte" sandstone and the "Mt. Simon" sandstone.  It's certainly not state lines as Voxrat pointed out.  It's not gremlins with swords.

So that's the data that we have ... the question is ... what do we make of it?
4) This sandstone contains no remains of 'billionzodeadthings'

What do we make of that, Dave?
That's a great question.
22
Why do I feel like Dave would rather get bitten by a snake than read an introductory textbook on geology?
23
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.

We agree that it was a single Marine transgression which deposited it.

no we don't.  Please look at an elementary geology textbook, Dave.


We just disagree on how long it took.

That's all.

We disagree on what's even there, Dave, let alone on what caused it.  There is no single vast incredibly flat layer of sandstone, let alone two.
if you don't think we agree on this then your head is up your butt. Go study some basic geology.

Dave, the ONLY reason you think there are (two now) "vast incredibly flat layer{s} of sandstone" covering much of North America is because you read it in those two (mutually contradictory in fact) ICR articles.  You didn't read it in a "basic geology" text book.

You read it in those ICR articles.  Go study a basic geology text book.  Or even watch what you arrogantly called a "propaganda video" - it shows how repeated regressions and transgressions create sandstone formations.  From that, you might be able to figure out what this diagram is about:



and why ICR is full of shit.
I'll Grant you I first learned about them from icr. But I learned the specifics of the layer that I'm now interested in - the cambrian basal sandstone - from various mainstream articles on the internet presumably based on geological texts. 

So stop dispensing squid ink and schaff and flares and deal with what I've actually posted.

Coward.
Read a text book, and come back with any questions you might have.
24
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).
Looking at the cores of just five oil wells pretty much deflates the notion that the Mt Simon sandstone is "uniform" even in that small section of the deposit.  See figure 3.  There is cross bedding even in these 3cm wide cores.  Not to mention all the burrows...

Dave, could it be that the cartoon from your YEC sites claiming to show the extent of sandstone has given you an inaccurate picture of what is actually in the ground?
This.
25
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"
And what big picture do you see, Dave?