Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Yes, he's objectively a crazy pile of circus peanut shit.

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 - Alfonso Bivouac

I can't even see how a global flood even starts to make sense as an explanation for geology, and I honestly don't think Dave does either. He just believes it does.
And the resulting subconscious incoherence manifests as hostile, pathetic posturing.

And beliefs in global conspiracies amongst scientists with a penchant for cheese and wine parties.
Listen people.  Billions of dead things.  Global flood. The end.
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Something to consider:
Who is having these "ideas"?
It is not my intention to get bogged down in an argument about the quantum vacuum. That is simply an indication that there is a domain beyond the physical (the metaphysical). I post about it only to show that the idea of the intelligence of Nature falls within the realm of metaphysics. And is within the realm considered by philosophers over the centuries. It may be too far out for you folks, but so be it.

Time to move on to another aspect of this fascinating topic.
Yep, I'm sold Socrates.  Tell us more about this creator.  How did it create, by what mechanism?  And what created the creator?
By considering ALL the data ... not just some of it ... i.e. don't ignore data we don't like ... that's apparently what Old Earthers are doing and it leads to absurdities.
What data are "Old Earthers" (i.e. the entire non-fundie scientific world) ignoring?
What "absurdities" are you talking about?

See, this is what you ALWAYS do.
You trot out these boilerplate, completely unsupported, bullshit generalities, based on nothing but your religious precommitments.


They are apparently not assuming a global flood happened.
I have supported my points with reference links and copy and paste. If others can do that please do. Your unsupported assertions mean nothing. And I do not mean general references. I mean references that address the exact points I am making.
Nothing addressing the points I am making. Anyone else?

Ooh, an argument between the Socrates's.
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
But of course you will not see that if you close your mind and simply rule it out.
I am not particularly interested in the comments from folks with closed minds. Nothing can enter such a mind. For others it is a VERY interesting exercise to make an effort for a day to see the intelligence of Nature in specifics.

Which of the Socrates are you talking to here?
So I cannot tell just by looking at the toaster whether it is the product of intelligence/plan/intention. How about if I use a very powerful microscope. Can I tell then?

The waffling, a sentence at a time, for days, is the most tedious stage.
In apparent confirmation of this punctuated equilibrium view of evolution, the fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, hundreds of thousands or millions of years later, without any change in external appearance.[78][91][93]

In other words "poof". According to the fossil record.
But my position which I have posted many times is more nuanced than that. Remember my talking about Nature's genetic engineering?

Was that the stuff about the BIRD teams and the MAMMAL engineering teams?
Hey Alfonso ... I reported your post as off topic, disruptive trolling.

Stay on topic or get the fuck out of my thread.

How the fuck is it off topic when it was a question about the only part of the page you had fucking highlighted?  You poor dimwitted fool.
These defenses are intelligent. Nobody can deny that.

Yes, somebody really could.
Unless you are also going to assert that water flowing downhill is intelligent or roundish rocks are intelligent.

I do not work with analogies. That just leads to time wasting disagreements about the analogy itself.
Nobody can deny that the defenses listed are intelligent.
Not only are they intelligent in design but wonderfully executed/engineered.

Can you tell us more about the engineering part?
With those distractions out of the way, let's get on with actual science ...


What is it exactly?  It's extremely important to Allan Savory and he says 2/3 of the world's land area is brittle ... so what are we talking about here?

So how long ago were the non-fire lighting, non-tool making humans about Dave?
Examples of camouflage methods apparently used by both plants and animals include:

Background matching - blending with the colours of shapes of the habitat where they live.
Disruptive coloration - markings that create the appearance of false edges and boundaries, making it harder to see the true outline.
Masquerade - looking like something else; usually something a predator might ignore, such a stone or twig. Examples include living stones, some cacti, passion vines and mistletoes.
Decoration - accumulating material from the environment. For example, some coastal and dune plants get covered by sand because of their sticky glandular trichomes, making them less conspicuous.

These are intelligent modes of defense designed/engineered by Nature.
Looks like nobody is able to deal with this. I understand.

Do you understand?  Really understand?
Evolution can be extremely rapid, as shown in the creation of animals and plants in a very short geological space of time, spanning only a few tens of thousands of years.
No response to this.
Nobody is interested in expressing agreement or disagreement with this. I understand.

I'm a bit 'meh' on it to be honest.
Apparently "socrates" has no answer to that question.

Or any question for that matter.
What better evidence could you have than Ivan's own testimony?
A controlled, blinded trial.

Self-deception is easy, Dave. Very, very easy. And yes - that applies to scientists, too.

Which is why experiments are designed the way they are.
There are some good principles we can glean from mainstream scientists.  The problem is that much self deception occurs anyway in spite of these supposed safeguards that you describe.
Yes, it does.

But when someone deliberately flouts the easy ways to prevent some common self-deceptions...
Dave has admitted that creation science is half baked.  I suspect it's one reason why he's given up on defending it.

Yeah, I remember how well you defended YEC in Pingu's C14 thread.

Oh, hang on, no, you ran away as fast as you could to put the shit bucket over your head to escape the conclusion that your cherished YEC beliefs were toast.
"Yes, since you apparently want to be public with this,"

Why wouldn't I want it to be public? I have nothing to hide.

I have committed the rest of my life to the betterment of humanity and the betterment of this planet which supports Humanity. Not from an ivory Tower, getting paid a fat salary by some think tank or a big university but from the middle of a goat pasture, on my own dime, getting my hands dirty every day in more ways than one.

But only for an hour a day.  The rest of my time I sell rubbish windows to gullible rubes for the betterment of myself and to help pay for all the fast food and chocolate milk (but only when I've run out of warm raw goats milk!).

Who's with me?

Not me.
This nonstop creepy harassment of Pingu has to stop.

Either grow up or fuck off.
You want to talk about harassment,  let's talk about harassment of Me by almost everyone here.

We have serious problems in our world today and two of the biggest problems are fake news and fake science. The reason I single out Pingu is because she comes in here like a freight train and pretty much takes over the conversation leaving very little chance for anyone else.

I'm a rare breed who doesn't mind confronting freight trains.

Name a single person who has mentioned that they have not had a chance to converse due to Pingu taking over?  You will not be able to name one.

Face it you coward.  Pingu has schooled you repeatedly on multiple topics, with well thought out, reasoned and polite posts.  She has shown how illogical and hypocritical you are and (much like many people in the past) have shown your YEC fantasies to be just that, fantasies.
The fact that it is a woman who has done this really gets to you doesn't it, really offends your misogynistic mind.  It has been fun to watch but the only retort you have is to insult and bully and basically whinge like a little kid.

And you're not a rare breed Dave.  Cunts like you are ten a penny.  Most are just lower down on the DK scale than you.
YEC doesn't matter for the topic of this thread. As others have noted, people like Allan Savory and Mark Sheppard are not YECs and yet their work is a Guiding Light for my work.

Cognitive dissonance'll do that.
Neo-Darwinism is based on random mutation as the source of changes that are then subject to selection.
So the more members in a group the greater the number of random mutations there will be that could prove beneficial.

No reference, link or copy/pasted relevant text.

Neo-Darwinism is based on random mutation as the source of changes that are then subject to selection.

You could argue until the cows come home.  That means nothing.
Very interesting references:

How interesting on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 for example being any science textbook and 10 as interesting as hidden camera footage from the B&B guest's rooms?
There is an extensive discussion of brittleness in chapter 4. But some goober here will probably report me to the copyright police if I post many more pages.

Did you ever pay up for that photo you stole for your e book cover?
Here's an idea ...

Let's reduce fossil fuel usage


Restore healthy soils

My idea for doing that in my own life is ...

1) Establishing a large enough HMG operation to support my family WITHOUT driving so much
2)  Establishing a "Sustainable Subdivisiin" which will allow lots of other people besides just me to drive less.



Kill two birds with one stone.

Seems like a pretty good plan to save agriculture... And save the world.

What say you?
Heck, have you started feeding any homeless yet?  Your track record of following through with your plans is terrible.

He can't even feed himself yet (and on 10 acres), most of his food is warm raw goats milk and fast food.
Your asshole behavior has in fact advanced holistic management because it has hardened my resolve to fight sophisticated lies and corruption among university professors which is destroying our world.

Has your campaign against
lies and corruption among university professors which is destroying our world
borne any fruit to date?

Where yes means no.