Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: let's make a poll

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 - entropy

1
Great questions. I don't have all the answers but I'm learning quite a bit from Guy Berthault's flume experiments.
O God. Not this shit again.
Haha.  Had to happen eventually.  It is a Hawkins Flud Thread, after all.
2
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?
3
https://creation.com/experiments-on-stratification-of-heterogeneous-sand-mixtures

Heh.   What he's doing more closely models the deposition of material by rivers (into the shallow seas you scoff at) than it does water deep and turbulent enough to suspend thousands of feet of material.
4
Great questions. I don't have all the answers but I'm learning quite a bit from Guy Berthault's flume experiments.
::)
5
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? 
6
In other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.
On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.
You would need more information to conclude that.
Hmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something else

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?
But that's not what we do have.
And, yes, they are different formations.
okay I think I was wrong about the Jordan Sandstone. There's so many damn names it's hard to sort it all out.  I think "Mt Simon" ( or Mount Sinai if you prefer ) is the name given to the "basal" Cambrian sandstone. Pretty sure basal means that it sits on the pre Cambrian basement.  Now I just have to figure out what they mean by "much of the Midwestern US." And does this include Iowa.

Pg 27 to 29 here https://s-iihr34.iihr.uiowa.edu/publications/uploads/2014-08-24_08-08-21_es-06.pdf
7
In other words, just because we call it the Lamotte sandstone in Missouri and we call it the Jordan sandstone in Iowa ( next state north of Missouri ) does not mean that they are different formations.
On the other hand, just because they exist does not mean they are the SAME formation.
You would need more information to conclude that.
Hmm. So there is a possibility in your mind that if we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian Sandstone covering all of Iowa named one thing, and we have a 1000 foot thick Cambrian sandstone in Missouri named something else

... and both of them lie on PreCambrian basement ...

That they might be different formations?
Yeah, that does sound pretty incredible.   Except that its not 1000 feet thick.  See pg 28 here https://s-iihr34.iihr.uiowa.edu/publications/uploads/2014-08-24_08-08-21_es-06.pdf
8
Yabbut what he does have is personal incredulity fortified with a bunch of 'friggin's and ALL-CAPS exclamations. He can see the walls of Jericho starting to crack!

I got a question for all you octohatters out there.

How much did it help using a lot of FRIGIN CAPS, and different color fonts in you doctoral dissertations?
You spelled 'FRIGGIN' wrong.  Two G's.
::)
9
It's almost as if those maps have some sort of connection to our observations.  :hmm:
Noooo.  That's unpossible!
10
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:


And hey, if you look at the Black Hills in southern South Dakota, right underneath "Land" there is no sedimentary rock overlaying the pre-cambrian stuff.

https://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/pineridge/geology1.html
11
Seriously, this is Galileo vs. the Scholars all over again.  And this sort of thing has happened ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

It's a bizarre human phenomenon.
::) Far far more common is "Quack vs the Scholars" but no one ever remembers the Quack.  
12
Where have you shown anything about extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat or uniform?

"extraoardinarily", relative to what?

Look at all theses states it's found in ...
Quote
Historically the name "Potsdam sandstone" was also applied to various other North American sandstone bodies that directly overlie Precambrian crystalline rocks, including sandstones in Canada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Indiana, and attempts were made to identify or correlate various rocks with the Potsdam formation.[23][24][25]
Do you see the problem here?
Yes I see the problem quite clearly. No mainstream geologist wants to look at the big picture because of the obvious implications.
Hey, this is a pretty big picture!  How does a flood produce this pattern of bedding?
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1260/OF2012-1260.pdf
13
We expect low behavior and lying from Dave, but we shrug it off, but a lapse of grammer has us clutching our pearls.
It's nice there's standards and expectations.
It's a shame they're asymmetrical.
*there're
15
This site is a gold mine.   Here we have an estuary that has eroded through the Peace River Formation (sand/clay/carbonate Cretaceous sedimentary rock) which was they overlaid by the Shaftsbury formation (shale).  All during a catastrophic global flood, presumably.

http://ags.aer.ca/publications/chapter-21-cretaceous-viking-formation
16
Here is a great page with cross-sectional maps showing that Cretaceous sandstone and other sedimentary deposits in Alberta.  (See links under Heading 1.3) http://ags.aer.ca/publications/chapter-20-cretaceous-colorado-alberta-group#Cross%20Sections%20and%20Maps

Here is a good example oriented East/West.  Not what one would call "flat"


This one is nice as well http://ags.aer.ca/image-content/fg20_07.jpg
17
This is pretty funny after a few days of Trumpets falling over themselves to defend the practice.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-separation-families-border-n885061
18
But then there's also this clumsy gaslighting gambit he frequently trots out, where he pretends that you have to be some sort of wackaloon, or be "lobotomized" to see things differently from the way he does. As in: "hilariously out to lunch".

There's a disturbing parallel with the fondness with which he recalls his junior high bullying stunt.
"Darwin-debased mind"  ::)
19
Oh, wasn't it the St Peter sandstone that was supposed to be "extraordinarily fine"?

But that isn't even in the same megasequence I don't think....

Basically, when you google anything to do with a vast area of sandstone covering most of North America, you end up in a creationist site.

They are simply lying.

There's plenty of sandstone but no extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat uniform layer.
Dave and Co seem to envision sandstone being laid down like an enormous sheet of fondant icing over the entire continent.

It's Flood mythology. When the waters calmed, all that suspended silt and sand sank gently to the bottom and formed a sheet - that turned to rock in a very brief time. It is also, of course, North America-centric. And delusional.
Yeah, seems a little weird that thousands of feet of sandstone would only be deposited on continental by a global catastrophic flood, but not on the ocean floor...  But what do I know.
20
]
The reason I ask is the sand had to either come from somewhere. Sand is typically not a base form of rock. The exception is volcanic sands but they are clearly different than most sandstone formations. Sands typically come from two sources: rock that's been broken down by weathering and erosion, first by freeze/thaw cycles and then bashing & crashing down and finally bashed & smashed by rivers & waves or from broken shells & other marine structures. Both of the processes take a very long time.

But according to Bluffy's myth, there was only about 1500 tears from creation to Ye Bigge Olde Fludde. Not enough time for either process the enormous volumes of sand involved in all those sandstones as well as all the other massive sand based formations.
Good point.

Your model is completely fucked, Dave. Beating this dead horse isn't going anywhere. Do you have anything else?
I'm sure Dave is busy drafting a substantive, well referenced, post that will address all these issues. 
21
I still want to know where Bluffy thinks all that sand came from.
Thats an interesting good point.   In order to deposit sediment 1000 feet thick the flood would have to have been turbulent enough to pick up and suspend a ridiculous amount of sediment.  
22
Oh, wasn't it the St Peter sandstone that was supposed to be "extraordinarily fine"?

But that isn't even in the same megasequence I don't think....

Basically, when you google anything to do with a vast area of sandstone covering most of North America, you end up in a creationist site.

They are simply lying.

There's plenty of sandstone but no extraordinarily thin, vast, fine, flat uniform layer.
Dave and Co seem to envision sandstone being laid down like an enormous sheet of fondant icing over the entire continent.
23

Hey I found a nice diagram of the Lamotte/Mount Simon portion of the extraordinarily thin, extraordinarily fine, extraordinarily flat layer of sandstone.



https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/1267/chapter/107128894/the-sauk-megasequence-in-the-cratonic-interior-of
I can almost hear the gently lapping waves of a shallow inland sea.
24
Where it suits him, Dave is all about how you get more erosion - and thus more sediment - when there's reduced plant cover.

However, when it suits him otherwise, Dave is all about how past sedimentary formations HAVE TO BE FORMED by some process HAPPENING TODAY and AT THAT SCALE, even at a time when there was NO terrestrial plant cover because terrestrial plants hadn't even evolved yet.

And no, it doesn't matter that Dave doesn't actually believe that there was such a time, because that would make his argument circular.
Of course, he doesn't have to show how paper thin layers of sandstone are FORMING TODAY at the base of deposits laid down by catastrophic flooding AT THAT SCALE.