Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Hello Dickie from Newark.

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
OK, forced behavioral changes and actions in recent days have made Alzheimers advance rapidly. Get ready.
2
It is always a kick to see one of the folks here refer back to my earlier posts.
On that page I posted:
"What intrigues me about the astral/quantum world is that everything is upside down.
Not that what was black is now white. But that it is now black and white.
And even that is not correct because that is just how we would put it from the physical level. That is not what it is unto itself.
So to understand that, we would have to put aside all our current conceptions.
Including putting aside all our conceptions of who we are (what we are)."

Thanks man, that was even funnier!
3
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?
Here's some more data, from the link I gave you and you pretend it doesn't exist:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Get it?
4
I'm pretty sure that "socrates" has never read a single word attributed to Socrates.
5
Anyway, since you apparently (HAH!) missed it the first time:
LITERALLY the FIRST GOOGLE RESULT for "lower Mt Simon":

http://www.sequestration.org/resources/PAGMay2016Presentations/04-Freiburg_IBDP_PAG_2016_Mt-Simon.pdf

If all those words and graphs and images in that presentation bore you, you can skip to the conclusions:
Quote
•Precambrian structure is visible through the Mt. Simon (more to follow)
•Compaction is normal throughout the Mt. Simon with anomalous porosity controlled by the overall lack of cements.  Diagenetic history is diverse and compartmentalized as suggested from fluid geochemistry.
•Lower Mt. Simon is highly heterogeneous  with base-level, climatic, basement topographic controls
• Pore network models of internal baffles suggest no long-term CO2  breakthrough

... Since Daveocrates tends to forget from page to page.
6
So back to my original question.

We have this basal Cambrian Sandstone, right? It has various names in various parts of N. Am. ... Mount Simon, tapeats, lamotte, Potsdam, Etc.  Do we all agree that this is basically a single formation all formed by a single Marine transgression? ( never mind for the moment that you think it was a calm Placid Marine transgression over millions of years and I think it was a violent raging torrent over a single year )

Do we at least agree that this basal Sandstone layer was a single formation caused by a single Marine transgression?
At what point do you think anyone (let alone "all") agreed to that?

Look at my post above.
7
Anyway, since you apparently (HAH!) missed it the first time:
LITERALLY the FIRST GOOGLE RESULT for "lower Mt Simon":

http://www.sequestration.org/resources/PAGMay2016Presentations/04-Freiburg_IBDP_PAG_2016_Mt-Simon.pdf

If all those words and graphs and images in that presentation bore you, you can skip to the conclusions:
Quote
•Precambrian structure is visible through the Mt. Simon (more to follow)
•Compaction is normal throughout the Mt. Simon with anomalous porosity controlled by the overall lack of cements.  Diagenetic history is diverse and compartmentalized as suggested from fluid geochemistry.
•Lower Mt. Simon is highly heterogeneous  with base-level, climatic, basement topographic controls
• Pore network models of internal baffles suggest no long-term CO2  breakthrough

8
So the ocean IS extremely shallow?
9
That was pretty memescape-worthy btw
10
I am starting to see how you folks understand this topic. And how that differs from how I understand it.
That is an interesting subject but not one that I care to go into. Your method of analyzing any subject is to argue. That does not interest me.
Good.

Bye.
13
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided". 

He'd never admit that here though. 
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
I love that after all the conversations about varves that have gone on with this group, Dave still can't get his head around material being laid down in thin layers at the bottom of bodies of water.


ETA: Also he's claiming to be a scientist but avoiding asking the questions that would invalidate his theory.  I'm the one who has to point out that there is no sandstone at the bottom of the ocean, and that the sandstone that is there is not as "uniform" as he claims.  Which he will completely ignore.    The only thing he does accept is a cartoon where he just assumes that everywhere where there is not Precambrian, there must be flat, thin, uniform sandstone. 
no I don't assume that. I suspect that. There's a big difference. And the phase I'm in right now is to try to determine what is actually there which is extremely difficult. Especially with all the squid ink from you guys.
I think what you see as "squid ink" is the darkness caused by the emergency mental shutdown you have, every time you see evidence you don't agree with.

Let's test that.

You say you want to see "what's actually there". OK.

LITERALLY the FIRST GOOGLE RESULT for "lower Mt Simon":

http://www.sequestration.org/resources/PAGMay2016Presentations/04-Freiburg_IBDP_PAG_2016_Mt-Simon.pdf

If all those words and graphs and images in that presentation bore you, you can skip to the conclusions:
Quote
•Precambrian structure is visible through the Mt. Simon (more to follow)
•Compaction is normal throughout the Mt. Simon with anomalous porosity controlled by the overall lack of cements.  Diagenetic history is diverse and compartmentalized as suggested from fluid geochemistry.
•Lower Mt. Simon is highly heterogeneous  with base-level, climatic, basement topographic controls
• Pore network models of internal baffles suggest no long-term CO2  breakthrough
14
Eventually, seeing the impossibility of a catastrophic global flood alone depositing sediment in the pattern we see today, Dave is going to have accept that the only explanation left to him "Because that's the way God wanted the planet to look after the flood waters subsided". 

He'd never admit that here though. 
actually what I see at the moment is the seeming impossibility of millions of years of calm Placid Seas depositing what we find there. But I remain open-minded.
I mean look ... What we have NOW is calm Placid Seas. So we can look at what happens on the margins of these calm Placid Seas and then use our imagination to extrapolate what would happen if this these calm Placid Seas Rose slowly over millions of years. And when I do that I find no place on Earth where you could conceivably do this extrapolation and come up with anything like the Sandstone layer that we find on the Precambrian basement.


But again, I remain open-minded. Convince me with compelling arguments.
[/quote]Why? What is it that you find inconceivable?

(except the notion of 'millions of years' themselves, of course)

Tell us where you disagree, and what you would expect to see in such a case. Then we can try to argue. But there is no "compelling argument" to be made against "I just don't buy it, period".
15
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?
16
Or is it "Majick Fludde, could be anything really"?
17
OK dave. How about you tell us what YOU think the composition and features of the lower layer should be?
18
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).
19
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.
20
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".
21
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.
22
Now dave imagines he has 'convinced' others. His "socratification" is almost complete.

How long before he starts talking about "stages"?
23
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
24
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Stable genius
25
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."