Suigetsu MkII

[Steviepinhead]

Occam's Aftershave/ Post # 142 at 4:28pm:

As always, a 30 second search on Google Scholar turned up thousands of papers and articles on sediment compressibility, since it is so critical to the petroleum industry.

Here is one of the best, most clear overviews I could find (caution: 6.8 Meg pdf)

Pressure and Compaction in the Rock Physics Space

With nice diagrams explaining the effects of porosity, water content, particle size, depth, etc.

Did anyone really expect Dumbass Dave to research this himself?

Dave Hawkins/ Post # 149 at 4:41pm:

And I doubt you right about freshly laid sediments anyway. Have any studies to support your point?

Sigh...

[JonF]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

We're not talking about freshly deposited sediments, Ninewands ... We are talking about sediments supposedly deposited up to 400 years ago. Read the papers.

Davie, you incredible dork, we are talking about the difference between freshly deposited sediments at a lake bottom and 400-ish year old sediment under a heavy overburden of other sediment.

Or, to put it another way, we are talking about the difference between the sediment as it was 400-ish years ago, freshly deposited on the lake bottom, and now, as it lies under the overburden of 400-ish years of other deposition ... and the word "overburden" is commonly used for this situation for a reason. Can you figure out what this reason is?

I bet you can't.

And I doubt you right about freshly laid sediments anyway. Have any studies to support your point?

At least one has been posted already. Do you have any studies to support your claim?

I didn't think so.

It's obvious you just made it up. It's another Portuguese moment!!

[Steviepinhead]

Just when eric was beginning to despair, from out of the blue, from under the muck, this is turning into one of those classic DaveHawkinsMoments...! Right before our eyes.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

We're not talking about freshly deposited sediments, Ninewands ... We are talking about sediments supposedly deposited up to 400 years ago. Read the papers.

Notice how Dave is deploying the old nebulosity tactic here:

"We're not talking about X, we're talking about Y"

As if that somehow addresses any of the issues we in fact are talking about. Now we can go off on a tangent all about whether we're talking about X or Y - a completely irrelevant digression - thus putting off the day of reckoning for another round of rabbit chasing.

And then "read the papers" - thrown in for a little condescending twittery.

And I doubt you right about freshly laid sediments anyway. Have any studies to support your point?

Notice again the nebulosity. Dave won't say specifically what he doubts "you right" about. You'll produce the papers that make your point, and Dave will say "But look! On page 37 they make clear that they're talking about calcium-rich aluminum silicates. You didn't say anything about that! Therefore, your point is meaningless!"

And Dave knows he's doing this. How can I tell?

Have any studies to support your point?

Notice the lack of subject in that sentence.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

You guys are just story telling and story telling and story telling.

You can't get a 6mm layer to compress down to 1mm by compression and water removal.

This argument is dead.

And it leaves you with quite a conundrum for your supposedly reliable Lake Suigetsu "clock."

Says who? You, mister know nothing? Hah! You're a fully qualified idiot. Nothing you say has any validity, even if its right.


ETA: Look at this page http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search
and the following, buffoono, if clays don't compact, what are all these people doing. Or you can just check out Chapter 18 of the Uniform Building Code. You really are an unremittent buffoon.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by JonF

Davie, you incredible dork, we are talking about the difference between freshly deposited sediments at a lake bottom and 400-ish year old sediment under a heavy overburden of other sediment.

Or, to put it another way, we are talking about the difference between the sediment as it was 400-ish years ago, freshly deposited on the lake bottom, and now, as it lies under the overburden of 400-ish years of other deposition ... and the word "overburden" is commonly used for this situation for a reason. Can you figure out what this reason is?

I bet you can't.

At least one has been posted already. Do you have any studies to support your claim?

I didn't think so.

It's obvious you just made it up. It's another Portuguese moment!!

Not even, at least French, Portuguese and Spanish all derive from a common root, Latin, but with obvious differences in influence, most notably Arabic on Spanish and German on French.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Steviepinhead

Just when eric was beginning to despair, from out of the blue, from under the muck, this is turning into one of those classic DaveHawkinsMoments...! Right before our eyes.

It's so exciting, I can't believe I am watching this and participating live while history is made.

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Susannah ...

I've done it. It doesn't compress. It displaces, but it doesn't compress.

I guess I forgot to say that you should close your fist first. Close it tight enough to hold in the sand; the water will squeeze out through the cracks.

Then take your hand out of the water before you look at it, or the movement will remix the sand and water.

I didn't think this would need to be explained.

Should I mention that you need to use all 4 fingers and the thumb, too?

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Notice how Dave is deploying the old nebulosity tactic here:

"We're not talking about X, we're talking about Y"

As if that somehow addresses any of the issues we in fact are talking about. Now we can go off on a tangent all about whether we're talking about X or Y - a completely irrelevant digression - thus putting off the day of reckoning for another round of rabbit chasing.

And then "read the papers" - thrown in for a little condescending twittery.

Notice again the nebulosity. Dave won't say specifically what he doubts "you right" about. You'll produce the papers that make your point, and Dave will say "But look! On page 37 they make clear that they're talking about calcium-rich aluminum silicates. You didn't say anything about that! Therefore, your point is meaningless!"

And Dave knows he's doing this. How can I tell?

Notice the lack of subject in that sentence.

What a terrible thing to have lost one's subject. Or to not have a subject at all. How true that is.

[Seven Popes]

Originally Posted by Seven Popes

I can do this by webcast with clay.
1000.00 US dollars.

A simple bet, Dave. I will set up a web cam, and do what you say is impossible, and if I can, you pay me 1000.00 dollars American. If I fail, I will pay you the same.
Warning: I have done this with my son literally dozens of times. It's dead simple to do, Dave. It's foolproof.

[Fathermithras]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

You guys are just story telling and story telling and story telling.

You can't get a 6mm layer to compress down to 1mm by compression and water removal.

This argument is dead.

And it leaves you with quite a conundrum for your supposedly reliable Lake Suigetsu "clock."

Dave, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

Maybe you don't get it. You don't get to waltz in here, with absolutely no credentials, absolutely no knowledge of mainstream geology, and tell people who have actually dedicated time, energy, and resources to studying geology that they're making shit up. You, who is consistently wrong about everything you try to claim, who is consistently shown to not know what he's talking about, do not have the authority to dismiss a claim like this without some reasoning.

A fucking two minutes of googling would turn up how asinine your comments are. TWO MINUTES. And yet you don't even have the mind to do that.

Who do you think you are Dave? For real. I'd like an answer. On a scale of one to ten, with one being a guy who dropped out of high school, and ten being a PhD expert in science, where do you put yourself?

Because you really seem to think you have high credentials. High enough to claim labs just commit fraud on a regular basis. High enough to say you know genetics in relation to evolution better then actual geneticists. High enough to TALK DOWN to actual geologists, about simple aspects of the fields they work in.

Who do you think you are?

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

And Dave knows he's doing this. How can I tell?

Notice the lack of subject in that sentence.

I wonder how long it will be before he catches on and starts running Grammar Checker on all his posts before he submits.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Fathermithras

Dave, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

Maybe you don't get it. You don't get to waltz in here, with absolutely no credentials, absolutely no knowledge of mainstream geology, and tell people who have actually dedicated time, energy, and resources to studying geology that they're making shit up. You, who is consistently wrong about everything you try to claim, who is consistently shown to not know what he's talking about, do not have the authority to dismiss a claim like this without some reasoning.

A fucking two minutes of googling would turn up how asinine your comments are. TWO MINUTES. And yet you don't even have the mind to do that.

Who do you think you are Dave? For real. I'd like an answer. On a scale of one to ten, with one being a guy who dropped out of high school, and ten being a PhD expert in science, where do you put yourself?

Because you really seem to think you have high credentials. High enough to claim labs just commit fraud on a regular basis. High enough to say you know genetics in relation to evolution better then actual geneticists. High enough to TALK DOWN to actual geologists, about simple aspects of the fields they work in.

Who do you think you are?

He's TGBd, Teh Great Buffoon, davey. And he has his sacred OLIBAM (Obsession with a Literal Interpretation of a Bronze Age Myth) to back him up. That's who he is.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

This argument is dead.

More nebulation to comment on:
"This argument is dead"
what argument???

The "argument" (!?) that tons of sediment will squeeze water out of the underlying layers?
The argument that there is clear evidence that there's a gradient of depth vs. age?
The whole Suigetsu-disproves-YEC argument?

And note the faux-confidence: "This argument is dead". Says who? A concept universally, uncontroversially accepted by every geologist on the planet is hardly "dead" because some Sunday School tyro says so. But none of that namby-pamby humility for Dave! None of that "I'm not sure I agree" or "this isn't altogether clear to me". No, no! It's "This argument is dead"

And it leaves you with quite a conundrum for your supposedly reliable Lake Suigetsu "clock."

More nebulation:

What leaves you with "quite a conundrum"?

And even if "it" did (whatever "it" is), what "conundrum"?

[ninewands]

You know, I'll give Dave this much. In terms of education he's about as well qualified to speak out on this subject as I am. However, From 1976 to 1978 I worked as a Field Engineer for Schlumberger Well Services running and interpreting well logs for oil companies. From 1978 to 1990 I worked as a Reservoir Engineer for five oil & gas companies ranging from large independents to one of the world's largest majors. Based on my evaluations of data gathered from wells (logs and core analyses) these companies committed to capital investments in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars during those twelve years. That they did so, and they also DECLINED to participate in several projects that I recommended they not buy into, tells me I knew my stuff. I don't NEED Dave's approval of what I tell him to know I'm right.

What he doesn't realize is how well he's playing into the hands of the EAC. He really IS one of the best tools we have for demonstrating that creationist fundamentalism causes brain damage. He is EXACTLY the sort of believer St. Augustine tried to warn Christians against being.

[Dave Hawkins]

Davie, you incredible dork, we are talking about the difference between freshly deposited sediments at a lake bottom and 400-ish year old sediment under a heavy overburden of other sediment

Well you may be. But I am not and what you are talking about is not relevant. Lasting Damage's claim is that 6mm laminae--some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your "clock")--will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.

[jerr]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Well you may be. But I am not and what you are talking about is not relevant. Lasting Damage's claim is that 6mm laminae--some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your "clock")--will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.

If the laminae cannot be compacted to 1mm or less, then how thin can they get? Give us your lower bound for their thickness.

[BWE]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

We're not talking about freshly deposited sediments, Ninewands ... We are talking about sediments supposedly deposited up to 400 years ago. Read the papers.

And I doubt you're right about freshly laid sediments anyway. Do you have any studies to support your point?

Do you ever notice Dave, how every single fucking time there really is the paper that proves the point that you are wrong? Do you remember how I debated you solely to prove you are an idiot and I won? Why would you ask that question instead of looking yourself? You know you'd find it. Is this one of your tells?

Jesus.

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Well you may be. But I am not and what you are talking about is not relevant. Lasting Damage's claim is that 6mm laminae--some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your "clock")--will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.

Dave, what POSSIBLE fucking difference does it make? This compaction isn't something that takes a great deal of time. 4,000 years would be plenty. There is no distinction to be made between an old-earth model and a young-earth model when it comes to sediment compaction.

Where the difference REALLY lies is in the ability of the standard models to explain why there is a consilience between depth and radiocarbon age, and between varve count and radiocarbon age.

By contrast, your non-existent "model" explains FUCK-ALL.

[BWE]

Lol. Guess what this list is:

-fuckwit.
-LOL!! I was told you really fucked up again. Yep...you -fucked up again. Stupid bastard!!
-Lying is bad, m'kay.
-lying again
-This is why you are a LIAR
-You've exceeded your own stupidity.
-poor excuse for an apology
-typical creationist evasion
-Wrong again, as usual. Idiot
-another pointless post
-idiotic comments about compression
-You are a liar, a quote-miner, a welcher and an idiot.
-And yet the same case is sufficient to justify your accusations of LD making things up. You really are contemptible.
-took you off ignore just long enough to neg you for being the same lying asshat you have always been. Back on ignore for you.
-Your accusation of LD deserves negative respect. You continue to be a dick Hawkins

[deadman_932]

You guys will probably want to look at the compaction and water content data from the 100-year high-res data from Lake Baldeggersee --

Lotter, A.F., M. Sturm, J. L. Teranes and B. Wehrli (1997) Varve formation since 1885 and high-resolution varve analyses in hypertrophic Baldeggersee (Switzerland) Aquatic Sciences - Research Across Boundaries Volume 59, Number 4 / December http://library.eawag.ch/EAWAG-Public...awag_02384.pdf



Notice the differences in water content and varve thickness through time, from Units A-G. (20 Cm to 12cm, etc. in just 100 years.) It should be possible to extrapolate from this data...grain size, water content and compaction rates through time. Interstitial water ("porewater") hangs around a long time, though...There's a few issues to consider in Suigetsu like groundwater movement up through the column...tectonic events like earthquakes cause differential movement of H2O and liquifaction or sometimes-recognizable disturbances in layers (seismites) . See references in this paper on seismites and how tectonics affects stuff : http://www.limnogeology.ethz.ch/MoneckeEtAlTect.pdf

Cheers! I'm having fun chasing other trolls around teh interwebs. Too many killer posters here for lightweights like me.

Yo, Dave, how's it going, fuckin' liar? When you gonna invite me to go collect samples? I promise I'll leave you alive.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Well you may be. But I am not and what you are talking about is not relevant. Lasting Damage's claim is that 6mm laminae--some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your "clock")--will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.

No support except for the fucking paper on sediment compression you were already shown, and the other 4000+ papers you could find yourself on Google Scholar if you weren't the world's laziest assmunch.

Hawkins, calling you a shit-for-brains liar is an insult to turds everywhere.

[Thlayli]

When clays are above their optimum moisture content, they expand. When they reach plus or minus 5% of their optimum moisture content, they compact easily and well under loads. When they get dry enough, they contract.

If a 20'x20' concrete slab can crack because of differential settlement of expansive clays under its relatively minuscule load, how do you think clay layers at gradually successively lower moisture levels is going to behave under the load of a lake plus the heavy saturated layers above it?

6mm to 1mm compaction under those load conditions is expected.

Basic civil engineering info. It's the stuff you don't even have to go to school to learn about... I worked with soils for over five years, and picked up this stuff within the first couple weeks of being trained on the job.

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Lasting Damage's claim is that 6mm laminae--some as deep as 162cm (400 years old by your "clock")--will somehow get compressed to 1mm or less over the next 20,000 or so years. But there is no support for this idea.

I didn't say that anywhere dave.

[Lasting Damage]

I can't believe this. We have all these serious issues, and dave is bickering over whether sediment will compress or not, and keeps repeating stuff where he has been told he is wrong.