Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Say that to my face

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 - DaveGodfrey

1
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.
Based on what evidence?

Oh, forgot, you have none.

Quote
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.
I.e. you have no clue how big, thick, or flat.

This may help:


There's a third basin next to Other Basin, you've got a nice dividing line along the edge, And depending on what the undersea topography was like you could probably divide "Basin" into several more. Especially if your sandstone was coming in from multiple sources along that coastline.
2
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!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
They are NOT separate.  They are connected.  And anyway at most there's two basins.  Which are connected.  Not 10 or 12 as one would think from all the different names given to the same frigging sandstone! 
No Dave, they aren't connected. There's an entire continent separating them.
No there is not. Look at the third picture again.

The brown bit is the continent Dave. Just because there's a bit of coastal sea round the bottom of it does not make them "connected" in the way you think they should be. This is because you don't understand the basics of sedimentology. Looking at that map I can see at least three basins, and maybe more. Two on the left hand side of that continent dividing the two seas, and maybe three on the right.

Quote
Learn some basic geology. Then maybe you'll be worth talking to.
Basic geology is not what is needed. What is needed is basic honesty.  And I don't consider you worth talking to because of your knowledge, but rather because of your need. You are hopelessly confused and blinded and you need someone to straighten you out.

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.

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.

No they don't. Otherwise you would be able to provide a citation that shows they're continuous and form one single unit, rather than several different units that were once thought to be correlated, but aren't necessarily thought to be the case.

Quote
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.

"Probably". Citation motherfucking needed Dave.
3
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!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
They are NOT separate.  They are connected.  And anyway at most there's two basins.  Which are connected.  Not 10 or 12 as one would think from all the different names given to the same frigging sandstone! 
No Dave, they aren't connected. There's an entire continent separating them. Learn some basic geology. Then maybe you'll be worth talking to.

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.
4
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!!!
See how you have a shallow sea on one side of the land, and then a shallow sea on the other? Those are really clearly two separate basins. And even within the seas there will be different depositional environments, and areas of deeper water separated by rises, that create different depositional basins.

Also what do you think those maps are based on Dave?
5
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ...
Says who?
The articles I posted say that they are correlated and that they are stratigraphically equivalent.
Again, that doesn't say that they're deposited in the same basin Dave. Do you know what a depositional basin is? 
6
All the sandstones I've posted about so far are CORRELATED.  That means they are THE SAME sandstone ... just given different names by region.
No, it doesn't. It means they're about the same age. It does not mean that they're part of the same basin.
7
Dave, Da Fludde wasn't fucking lava was it? Or is gopher wood made of asbestos?
8
Dave, the subterranean oceans on other solar system bodies are basically their mantles. Nothing like Brown' idiotic model. Venus' resurfacing was with lava. And when pray did that happen?

Random bullshit is not evidence Dave.
9
Was that before or after the fludde Dave?
10


Quote
A map of what the Sahara was like    8,000 to 11,000 years ago . . .
 

Yes ?
And... ?

Adjusted for erroneous Carbon 14 dating assumptions, that's probably more like 4500BC to 2000 BC or so. Come on Vox you know all this by now don't you?
When did da fludde happen Dave? Before or after the sediment showing these patterns were deposited?
11
Nor is "The Sahara" a synonym for "North Africa".
Nor is Persia a synonym for Iran. But it's close enough for our purposes.
No, it isn't.
12
What the fuck are you babbling about Mr "Open up the canopy by 50%"?
13
Numerous problems with Milankovitch mechanism

However, there are numerous problems with the astronomical hypothesis.12-17 These problems continue to plague the hypothesis and have been emphasized in recent articles.

How does the ice age cycle begin?

The most obvious problem is why should the ice age cycle begin about 2.7 Ma when the Milankovitch cycles supposedly have existed for many hundreds of millions of years? Is there an argument here that could be raised regarding changing planetary alignments or solar 'evolution' that might account for this?

The closure of the Panama isthmus and the change it had on global ocean circulation is a pretty obvious one. Orbital mechanics can account for the pattern of glacials and interglacials, but they don't explain how the ice ages start. Note that the glaciation of Antarctica started 33mya, when the Antarctic Circumpolar Current starts up and basically turns Antarctica into a giant freezer.

Oard is an idiot if he thinks this is a "problem" that nobody has thought about.
14
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 
15
Quote
Foley said Wright's research offers "a thought-provoking idea, worthy of more debate and study, but the current body of evidence does not prove the hypothesis."

And they're not talking about the whole Sahara anyway. Are they Dave?
16
Dave, do you think the defendant should be allowed to contact potential witnesses for the prosecution? Can you think why that might be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Al Capone?
I'd be careful here; there isn't anything even close to a general rule precluding pretrial contact with witnesses.
It doesn't need to be a general rule, its just an obvious thing that you'd set as part of bail conditions.
That's what I mean by a general rule - the way you are saying it, bail should always have a rule against contacting witnesses. The general rule probably goes the other way - contact with witnesses, in the form of pretrial interviews, is often rather necessary for a defense. More generally, conditions of bail are supposed to be as lenient as they can be to accomplish whatever goal they have. A rule against contact is very restrictive.

The rule that was broken here wasn't "no contact with witnesses". The rule was "No crimes while on bail."
The defense team can, for obvious reasons. The defendant probably shouldn't, unless they're conducting their own defense. And in a bunch of cases I can see that being a terrible, terrible idea, especially if you think witness tampering is a possibility.
17
Dave, do you think the defendant should be allowed to contact potential witnesses for the prosecution? Can you think why that might be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Al Capone?
I'd be careful here; there isn't anything even close to a general rule precluding pretrial contact with witnesses.
It doesn't need to be a general rule, its just an obvious thing that you'd set as part of bail conditions.
18
Dave, do you think the defendant should be allowed to contact potential witnesses for the prosecution? Can you think why that might be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Al Capone?
19
What if we looked and concluded that Nature was stupid?
20
For guests who may be interested:
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FINAL-Human-Evolution-PHE-news-release-spring-2018-002.pdf
Quote
* Genetically the world "is not a blurry place." Each species has its own specific mitochondrial
sequence and other members of the same species are identical or tightly similar. The research
shows that species are "islands in sequence space" with few intermediate "stepping stones"
surviving the evolutionary process.
Quote
The new study, "Why should mitochondria define species?" relies largely on the accumulation of
more than 5 million mitochondrial barcodes from more than 100,000 animal species, assembled
by scientists worldwide over the past 15 years in the open access GenBank database maintained
by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information.
The researchers have made novel use of the collection to examine the range of genetic
differences within animal species ranging from bumblebees to birds and reveal surprisingly
minute genetic variation within most animal species, and very clear genetic distinction between a
given species and all others.

Worth repeating. This study confirms what was already known.
What I have added to the picture is how cladistic analysis covers over this problem.
This is the "trade secret of paleontology" that Gould refers to.
AND
Quote
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182
Worth repeating.
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."
They're talking about the fossil record and how poor it is. 12 specimens if Archie remember? 20 odd T rexes? How can you study gradual evolution with that sample size Sucky? Think.
21
And what data supports this? Is it from ice cores? If so what does that mean for creationism Dave?
22
Dave, do you know what a rain shadow is?
23
N. Africa is degraded.

Period.
Dave is completely wrong about this. Period
24
Maybe if Sucky ever answered a question put to him and was capable of expressing his point he might get a response other than "so fucking what"?

I keep asking you a question. Fucking answer it.
25
That's because you're also convinced that Weston Price was correct, when he very clearly wasn't, and you're comparing very different diets when you bring up the Inuit and other people with diets high in saturated fats, because you ignore the source of those fats, as well as the other things they ate, the short term nature of a couple of guy's experiments, and a bunch of well documented side effects.

All because you really don't want to grow vegetables, don't care about the animals you are looking after many of which have died due to your negligence, and don't have the first fucking clue about how economies of scale work.
OMG

1) whether Weston Price was correct or not has nothing to do with Allan savory's plan to reverse land degradation in brittle areas which comprise about two-thirds of the earth's land surface

2) you cannot reverse land degradation in these brittle areas by growing vegetables or removing livestock or killing wildlife or leaving it fallow. You can only do it in one of two ways... Restoring the ecosystem to what it was 15,000 years ago with Massive numbers of Mega herbivores by waving a magic wand.

Or use holistically managed cattle herds to simulate that situation as best we can. This is what is now being done on at least 40 million Acres worldwide and growing.

Dave, in many cases there weren't massive numbers of mega herbivores.
Ok so we're in flat out denial of info like that provided by the Smith paper. 

No, we're in "different animals live in different places", dickhead. And most of the megaherbivores in Australia were extinct by then. Or would be if you thought the world existed then. Some places never had much in the way of megaherbivores. Like the middle of the Sahara which has been a desert for millions of years. Or large chunks of Northern Europe, which were buried under ice 15,000 years ago.

Quote
And Savory has *not* shown that leaving it alone doesn't work. Especially because leaving it alone will encourage native wildlife to return.
Sure he has.  But you have to READ to know that. 

You would have to present DATA to show that. All you have provided is cheerleading and unverified claims.

Quote
Also native wildlife is part of HMG.  They return because of HMG.  Wildlife is central to Savory's work.  When you have a well managed cattle herd, you will have far more wildlife coming around.  If you'd get off your lazy ass and watch that documentary I linked, you'd know that Savory supports his work with African Safari hunting leases.  That's because his system attracts all kinds of wonderful African game. 

Documentaries aren't data. Show me the data.

Quote
God but you people are dense!  I think you've all been "fogged" by the Lady of the Green Kirtle.  Glad she's decided to stop posting for awhile.  Maybe you'll wake up.

Maybe you'll go fuck yourself you misogynistic wanker?

Quote

I mentioned Weston Price because he's another messiannic figure you've glommed onto who tells you what you want to hear about diet, and Savory tells you what you want to hear about agriculture, to provide that diet. Do try to engage what passes for a brain.
Listen you idiot ... if someone wants to tell me that they traveled the world for 7 years and found no healthy groups who ate mostly animal foods ... great.  I'd listen. 

People have done just that. You have ignored them. People have show you the data that conclusively proves that you don't need them to be healthy, and there are clear and obvious health risks with eating large quantities of animal foods. You ignored them.

Quote
But I've never read anyone who did that.  Weston Price's book might as well be entitled "The Importance of Animal Foods" because that's his major conclusion after YEARS of painstaking data gathering. 

And more data has shown that he was wrong. Animal foods are not essential. What do you keep saying "there are no essential foods"?

Quote
Hard working scientists like Price are now few and far between.  They don't make 'em like they used to.
Good thing too. We've come a long way from fraudulent colonialists.