Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Poll to be added in a moment

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

1
I will grant that you also don't understand the age of the earth thing.
2
Hugely important read ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/16/science/venus-s-remade-face-offers-hints-of-cataclysm.html


Did you take a picture of your computer screen with your phone? 

Yes.  And this is the running circles round everyone guy.
3
But keep going.

The more you lie, the more people will see what a fraud you are.

You're not a "doctor" of science.

You're a fraud.

Where are the billionzofdeadthingzs Dave?
I think I've mentioned before that this is a great question but not for this thread.

In this thread I'm focused on one thing... Basal Cambrian sandstone in North America.

Sorry, here's me thinking this thread was titled 'Evidence for the global flood'.  I would have thought a lack of 'billionzofdeadthingzs' in this layer, regardless of thickness, extent etc. is a crippling piece of data for ye olde global flud.

No surprise why it's not your focus man-child.
4
But keep going.

The more you lie, the more people will see what a fraud you are.

You're not a "doctor" of science.

You're a fraud.

Where are the billionzofdeadthingzs Dave?
5
And all I can say for sure at this point is that I have indeed found sandstone in the geological literature in some locations indicated by the map.

And all I can say for sure at this point is the billionzofdeadthings aren't there.

What does this tell us Dave?
6
Socrates.  When you were young, did you see something nasty in the woodshed?
8
Dave, what do you mean re 'not having seen sandstone beaches'?

Because exposed sandstone beaches are pretty common, and so are coastal sandstone cliffs.

Were you expecting sand to turn to stone in a couple years or what?

His flume experiments with sand in a glass of water are still running.  Check back in a few years.
9
Where's the billionzofdeadthings Dave?
Worth discussing, but not now.  We have to maintain a narrow focus if we want to make progress.

You mean don't take a holistic view?  Tut tut Dave.

Remember what you're trying to show, global flood, killed everything yada yada.

Where's the billionzofdeadthings Dave?
10
Where's the billionzofdeadthings Dave?
11
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0012160696900329/1-s2.0-S0012160696900329-main.pdf?_tid=5b6efc74-268d-4a58-b0da-011b90c5b142&acdnat=1529591046_4633f6b81f6d440cd2ed8bf395fa22f5
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
Quote
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.


Quote
Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
By acknowledging the morphogenetic field we are looking at the fundamental driver of "evolution".
This is where we left off.
The question is where does this morphogenetic field come from?
If anyone knows anything published on this question please give us the reference link and copy and paste.
It looks like nobody will be posting a reference link and copy and paste.

Maybe someone will come along.  Perhaps one of the guests.
12
"us" ?

Yes. You know, Doug's fantasy classroom?

Who all reside in his head and all having the same name, 'Socrates'.  They had quite a disagreement a few days ago.
13
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?
4) This sandstone contains no remains of 'billionzodeadthings'

What do we make of that, Dave?

Yes Dave, a good scientist must look at all the data.  Why are you not looking at this question?
14
It is all part of Nature. We are all part of Nature. Enough said.

The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.

This domain is not separate from the physical. It interpenetrates the physical.

Opinion of internet loon.

DISMISSED!
15
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
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.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.
Worth repeating. People can no longer pretend there is no scientific evidence of a domain beyond the physical.

How is it beyond the physical?
16
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
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.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.

Do you have a reference for this (with the relevant text copied and pasted of course, I'm not going on a wild goose hunt)?  Becasuse otherwise it just sounds like the opinion of a nobody on an internet discussion board.  One of the members had something to say about that type of stuff.  Does anyone know who it was?
17
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
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.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.

Or is it?

I had a quantum plenum fluctuation event in my brain this morning as I was straining a little too hard during my morning toffee.  For an instant I understood the inner workings of the quantum plenum and man's place in it all.  Then I had a particularly large splashback and all the understanding went floating away like the remnants of a dream.
18
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.
19
Listen people.  Billions of dead things.  Global flood. The end.
20
Quote
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.
21
Yep, I'm sold Socrates.  Tell us more about this creator.  How did it create, by what mechanism?  And what created the creator?
22
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.
Oh?
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.

This is PREACHING.

They are apparently not assuming a global flood happened.
23
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.
24
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?
25
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.