Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Believe in Dawkins? We can fix that.

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 - VoxRat

1
There are other differences too.
The amazing thing here is the fact that Hawkins thinks it doesn't occur to geologists that formations don't end at state lines.
2
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.
3
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.
4

Do you guys think that this means that it just ends at the borders of Missouri? Or what?
It seems unlikely that the edges of an underground geological formation would happen to match the arbitrary political borders of a state.
What is the point of this from-all-appearances stupid question?  :dunno:
5
... submitting to groupthink
Do you think you are not submitting to groupthink when you uncritically swallow ICR's bullshit articles?
6
No dave. There are not two extraordinarily flat, uniform sandstone layers covering most of N America.
You still don't get it: ICR is lying to you.
7
Looks like it's go for launch!
Expect Many Fine People to show up!

Quote
The National Park Service announced Wednesday it had approved the "white civil rights" rally for Lafayette Square the weekend of Aug. 11-12. That is the anniversary of the "Unite the Right" protest, which sparked a national furor with its blatant displays of racism. President Trump amplified the controversy when he initially failed to condemn the white supremacists.
In the request he submitted on May 8, Jason Kessler, who was behind the Charlottesville rally, estimated that 400 people would attend and said the purpose was to protest "civil rights abuse in Charlottesville."
'White civil rights' rally marking Charlottesville anniversary set to be held next to White House
8
Come on, Ben. You can do better.
Can the condescension asshole. It does not become you.
9
So what is the point of "participating" at all in a discussion forum with folks who cannot even acknowledge/understand the points you have been making so far ?   :dunno:  
10
Do you want to know the answer?  Or do you prefer to remain under the delusion that hundreds of thousands of geologists don't have one?

If the former, ask yourself: where are the commonest places to find sand?

Then ask yourself: of those places, which one most often gets covered by water?
So, where DO you find sand, Dave? Most commonly?  Have a think.
Also: where do you most commonly find SAND?
Afdave's Fourth Law:
Unanswerable questions are invisible.
11
Probably...
Maybe...
Probably...

TRUTH!!!1!
12
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!
13
Never mind for now the impossibility of getting a sandstone like what we actually have in a stupid placid sea over millions of years ... never mind that for now ...

What I wanna know now is ... how the hell are they not all one damn unit?

As ICR asserts that they are.
So you're saying that if the geology is as ICR asserts, that would be exactly what you'd expect if the standard geological history is correct.

I don't think you've thought this through.
14
Ignorance:  "I don't understand why they're not all the same formation, but then I haven't read so much as an introductory text in geology"

Militant Ignorance: "They're all the same frigging formation!!1!"
15
You think you made a "point" ?
16
Littering his posts with 'friggin's and over-the-top ALL-CAPS expressions of incredulity are unmistakable clues that Hawkins is just doiing his well-rehearsed Stupid Dance and has no interest in actually learning anything.
17
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.
and you are unable to articulate what part of :airquote: big picture :airquote: they're missing.

Huge surprise there.
18
Not everyone! I count six (6) "Socrates"'s in that conversation!
19
Yes but no!
This is like that classic grammar no-no "I feel badly" as in:
Quote
"I feel badly for Gen. Flynn. I feel very badly. He's led a very strong life, and I feel very badly about it," Trump told reporters Monday as he left the White House
No, you feel bad. "Feeling badly" would mean that your sensory neurons were working inefficiently.  It would be like saying "I look very badly" (because, say, your skin was a preternatural orange hue, or your hair resembled a carefully arranged ferret). No. You look bad.
21
"grisly" is another one (adjective that sounds like an adverb).
Americans are sometimes confused by the British use of "poorly".
22
It's kind of baffling...
Quote
Only three months ago, on the morning after fellow Democrat Phil Murphy captured the governor's office, Sweeney tweeted that the "long-overdue millionaires tax" would be "the first bill we pass in January."  ...
Under Sweeney's leadership, the Legislature passed and put a millionaires tax on former Gov. Chris Christie's desk five times since 2010.
Top Democrat says millionaires tax pushed by Phil Murphy is now 'absolutely last resort'
23
Yes Peez I know. You are like that Junior High kid I told about who was laughing at the joke he didn't understand.
idgi...  In what way is Peez like the kid you so cowardly bullied?

Is that correct grammar in US English?  "cowardly bullied"?  I'm genuinely curious because you are generally nitpickier than me on grammar (and I'm quite nitpicky myself).
Heh... I knew that was going to be an issue.
Yeah, it feels wrong because "cowardly" is generally an adjective.
So one's first instinct might be to go with "cowardlyly".
But one would instantly recoil at that!
The dictionary (which I did indeed consult before I posted that!) allows "cowardly" as an adverb, but mainly as an "archaic" form.
I couldn't find another word that adequately expressed my assessment of the character of the interaction in question, so I decided to just go with it, and - just this once! - throw grammar under the bus.

(I did consider "pusillanimously", but to my mind that somehow doesn't quite capture the kind of cowardliness  that characterizes bullying)
24
On the other hand I just read that New Jersey democrats are fighting a tax hike on millionaires. 
Fighting among themselves, that is.
(D) state senate president Sweeney is resisting (D) governor Murphy's tax proposal that includes a "millionaire tax".
New Jersey Senate Leader Casts Doubt on Governor's Plan to Raise Taxes
25
Of course we already know the answers because we've been through this more than once before. Relative to what? A piece of paper. What does that have to do with geology? Nothing. It's just a meaningless analogy an ICR writer came up with to get know-nothings like Dave to go "Wow!"

Why is it significant? Because said ICR writer says normal sedimentation couldn't produce such a formation. Is there any reason to believe him? No, but Dave does anyway.

You know what else is "incredibly" thin and "super duper" flat?

The Ocean (that's right, there's just one because they're all connected).  It covers 70% of the earth's surface, i.e. 138,000,000 square miles, and is on average 12,100 ft deep. That's the equivalent of an 8.5"x11" piece of paper, less than 0.1 effing MICRON thick!!!1!.

So take that, Darwinists!