Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The energy upon the mass

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
Over at Pingu's site, The Skeptical Zone, she wrote ...

Quote
There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them.  There's nothing wrong with those sites, and I've learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.  In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties.

I highlighted the last part because I agree.

In that spirit ... let's see what common ground we hold with respect to ...

BASAL CAMBRIAN SANDSTONE IN N. AMERICA

I do believe that we all share the belief that ...

1) It's mainly sandstone
2) It was laid down by water
3) There a lot of it in N. America, perhaps covering 3/4 of the land surface
4) It is named differently in different parts of N. Am. ... Potsdam, Lamotte, Mt. Simon, Tapeats, etc.
5) But each of these names refers to "basal Cambrian sandstone" ... the word "basal" defined previously

Can we all agree to this so far?
2
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?
3
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it. Should be easy for you since you are so brilliant. Model a land mass with no plants, just bare rock. Then model a transgression of the sea over several million years and see what you get.  I predict you will get nothing remotely resembling a 2 million square mile ultra thin Ultra flat layer of sandstone.

And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
Why do you predict we will get nothing like that? What do you predict we will get instead? On what do you base that prediction?
Because we have eyes and brains. Well at least I do. And we can see what has formed at Ocean margins over the last several thousand years and then we can use our brains to extrapolate that over millions of years. And I'm sorry but in my wildest imagination even holding my nose and squinting my eyes can I possibly imagine forming such a Sandstone layer by normal processes operating today.  Maybe you are smarter than I am and maybe you are better at explaining things, so feel free to try.
4
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.

Thanks very much for putting your Badger friend behind a spoiler so it doesn't fuck up my screen on my phone.
5
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.
6
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it.
::)  I'll leave that to actual, you know, geologists.
good for you. If you can point me to one of them that has done it, please do.
7
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.
We don't agree on what "this basal Sandstone" even is.
we agree that it's sandstone. We agree that it was deposited by water. We agree that it sits atop so-called pre-cambrian basement. We agree that it's not demarcated by Missouri state lines. Or Gremlins with swords. We agree that varies in thickness between a hundred feet and 2000 feet. We agree on certain other things such as that the one area of it that geologists call the Mount Simon Sandstone covers a fairly significant portion of the midwestern u.s.

And there's probably more we agree on.
8
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
But this objection has been rebutted over and over:
1. It's nothing more than an unsubstantiated Argument from Incredulity.
2. Even if it were substantiated - we wouldn't expect the same processes to operate in all periods of the earth's history.
Particularly not a world where all the land was lifeless desert.

model it. Should be easy for you since you are so brilliant. Model a land mass with no plants, just bare rock. Then model a transgression of the sea over several million years and see what you get.  I predict you will get nothing remotely resembling a 2 million square mile ultra thin Ultra flat layer of sandstone.

And I make that prediction with half my brain tied behind my back with no more intelligence than that necessary to find my way out of a brown paper sack.
9
Squid Ink. That's all she ever does is post squid ink.
10
I'm suggesting that there is an extremely large layer in North America. I'm guessing perhaps  two or three million square miles in areal extent. And at the moment I'm trying to get more accurate information about it by piecing together all these various names of basal Cambrian sandstones.
There is no evidence that all "basal Cambrian sandstone" is one layer. You have posted some evidence strongly suggesting they are not one layer.
sure there is. Even you say that it was one Marine transgression that deposited it.  Look again at your own geologic Evolution Maps which I posted. On this point we agree. Our main point of disagreement is how long this one single Marine transgression took to form the deposit.

You say millions of years. I say less than one year.

Do you know what a marine transgression is?  And a regression?
Yes of course. Do you?

So what is it?
a transgression is where the sea Rises and covers the land. A regression is where it lowers and uncovers the land.  Jesus Christ.
11
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.
12
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.

Sure there are.
Fine. Show me a shoreline anywhere in the world where this type (size, thinness, flatness) sandstone layer is forming today.

You're going to have to get a lot more specific than "hey Dave ever been to a beach?"
13
I'm suggesting that there is an extremely large layer in North America. I'm guessing perhaps  two or three million square miles in areal extent. And at the moment I'm trying to get more accurate information about it by piecing together all these various names of basal Cambrian sandstones.
There is no evidence that all "basal Cambrian sandstone" is one layer. You have posted some evidence strongly suggesting they are not one layer.
sure there is. Even you say that it was one Marine transgression that deposited it.  Look again at your own geologic Evolution Maps which I posted. On this point we agree. Our main point of disagreement is how long this one single Marine transgression took to form the deposit.

You say millions of years. I say less than one year.

Do you know what a marine transgression is?  And a regression?
Yes of course. Do you?
14
Guys...

We agree that this basal Sandstone was deposited by water.

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

We just disagree on how long it took.

That's all.
15
I'm suggesting that there is an extremely large layer in North America. I'm guessing perhaps  two or three million square miles in areal extent. And at the moment I'm trying to get more accurate information about it by piecing together all these various names of basal Cambrian sandstones.
There is no evidence that all "basal Cambrian sandstone" is one layer. You have posted some evidence strongly suggesting they are not one layer.
sure there is. Even you say that it was one Marine transgression that deposited it.  Look again at your own geologic Evolution Maps which I posted. On this point we agree. Our main point of disagreement is how long this one single Marine transgression took to form the deposit.

You say millions of years. I say less than one year.
16
And why is it* supposed to be significant? I really don't think Dave knows the answer to that question because neither of the ICR articles provide it. They just state it like it's supposed to be significant and then proclaim based on no provided evidence or reasoning that it must be the work of a global flood rather than normal sedimentary processes.

* the alleged uniformity of the allegedly "incredibly thin" and allegedly "super duper flat" alleged single sandstone layer allegedly covering all much of the planet North America.

Yes. I have been asking this for days. I've gotten the
Afdave's Fourth Law:
 Unanswerable questions are invisible.

treatment.  I predict you will, too.

I've answered this over and over. The reason it would be significant is because there are no known processes operating today which could possibly produce such a layer if extrapolated to millions of years.
17
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.
Really?  Maybe you just suck at Google.  Because I was able to show you that the Mt Simon Sandstone isn't particularly uniform even over small geographical areas, and that there is no basal sandstone over HUGE area of the planet, while I was having my morning coffee.
Depends on what you mean by uniform.  And also the context. A thickness variation between 100 and 2000 feet could in no way be described as extremely thin, flat and uniform if the areal extent is 1 square mile or 10 square miles or even 100 square miles. 

But we are talking about possibly TWO MILLION square miles in areal extent.

Those seem like big numbers, don't they.   What would the sediments on a two million square mile body of water look like if were deposited by wind and rivers flowing into it?
excellent question. Hold that thought.
18
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 didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?

Dave, did you look at that map and just assume that everything in white had a lower layer of sandstone?
Yes, he did.  No, It doesn't
No I did not.

But there IS a lot of basal sandstone.

What is "basal sandstone" Dave?

good question. I asked that earlier and I guess you missed it. If you miss a lot. But anyway I think it means Sandstone that directly overlies the "pre-cambrian" basement rock

And are you suggesting that there is a world-wide layer of sandstone overlaying precambrian rock, i.e. at the base of all Cambrian strata?
I'm suggesting that there is an extremely large layer in North America. I'm guessing perhaps  two or three million square miles in areal extent. And at the moment I'm trying to get more accurate information about it by piecing together all these various names of basal Cambrian sandstones.
19
It might also be time for a reminder that there are sedimentary layers, including sandstone, in the Pre-Cambrian too...


this is an interesting diagram but not for the reasons that you think.
20
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?
21
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.
Really?  Maybe you just suck at Google.  Because I was able to show you that the Mt Simon Sandstone isn't particularly uniform even over small geographical areas, and that there is no basal sandstone over HUGE area of the planet, while I was having my morning coffee.
Depends on what you mean by uniform.  And also the context. A thickness variation between 100 and 2000 feet could in no way be described as extremely thin, flat and uniform if the areal extent is 1 square mile or 10 square miles or even 100 square miles. 

But we are talking about possibly TWO MILLION square miles in areal extent.
22
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 didn't say it's continuous.
I see. 

So when you posted that map with all that exposed Pre-Cambrian rock ... did you notice the white (non-shaded) portions of the map?  You are not convinced that the lowest layer of THAT portion - basal sandstone - is continuous over the non-shaded area depicted? 

Just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

What - in your opinion - is the nature of these discontinuities?  State lines?  Wooden fences?  Armies of gremlins in columns?  Something else?

Dave, did you look at that map and just assume that everything in white had a lower layer of sandstone?
Yes, he did.  No, It doesn't
No I did not.

But there IS a lot of basal sandstone.

What is "basal sandstone" Dave?

good question. I asked that earlier and I guess you missed it. If you miss a lot. But anyway I think it means Sandstone that directly overlies the "pre-cambrian" basement rock
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.