>> 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.
> if you cannot comprehend infinity, how can you pose such a question
Not being able to comprehend quantum physics doesn't prevent me from thinking such a
thing exists, or asking how anyone can comprehend it If quantum physicists exist,
it implies quantum physics exist, eh?
I'm having much fun with this.
> Yes, but easier doesn't mean it is the right one does it?
I answered your question by saying I don't know. I don't have a problem saying that if
it is true, and often wish other people didn't either.
> You would need to have something that actually effects the radio-isotopes to disprove
it. And I am not saying it is not possible, there can be such things, but it doesn't
seem very likely.
I have heard of such things (in passing) long ago, but have little interest in searching
links. Considering the number of skeptics in the scientific world, I imagine googling
would almost certainly turn up some date-testing related questions/controversies. The
point I was making, is that there are places/communities where mentioning such questions
would be considered taboo.
>>> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions
>> Drats, there goes years of electrical study...
> Like I said, useful error. It doesn't matter if electrons are "ideal" (aka a pure
signifier/abstraction) as long as it provides a useful model to work with
So electrons=fake, and you wanna me to try to prove otherwise? No thanks.
> you take the easy way out, which is also the reason you won't let go of god.
Declining a quest to prove the existence of electrons is not a sign of laziness, it is a sign
of having other interests. Believing in god is not a sign of laziness, but rather it is
simply a case of disbelieving some of the theories you believe, and for good reason.
> you could not have "a thing that is outside of everything"
...
I am differentiating between things that exists and things that are pure abstractions, I am not sure
why you aren't?
To my mind:
everything = everything we know
thing != ONLY things we know
Did that clarify, or just mix more?
> not only did these animals survive the apocalyptic conditions, but they must dominate in
the post apocalyptic world.
Agreed. By default, the survivors of appocalypse would have signifigant advantage over the
ones that died.
> Species A? But now it doesn't have the numerical superiority (or food chain superiority)
anymore that kept B and C underground, so this means its a race to see which species can
take advantage of the new environment faster
You are going heavily into theory here. I don't agree with your assesment at all, and
consider such ramblings in the 'I KNOW' line of thought. You don't know that is the way
things would have worked. We know the results, as we see them with our eyes, but claiming
conjecture like ^that is the fact of how said results came to be is just wrong.
Trying to prove that catastrophy speeds evolution by creating race situation is just flawed.
Alternate THEORY could be that most cold blooded creatures died for no other reason than
because they were cold blooded, not because they lost post-appocalyptic race for resource
collection.
> interesting gaps we need to fill with evolution, there certainly is. But the premise is good
I have stated in the past that evolution is logical. I don't imagine you read that though.
> the evidence we have is clearly favoring it vastly (I will be surprised if it really is
modified by that much
The evidence that small dogs can change to big dogs is sound. The evidence that bacteria
can transform into an adom player is less sound. I will be surprised if evolutionary theory
and 20-zillion-years-precision date testing doesn't continue evolving with each generation.
> at least you can say "I don't know," thats atleast credit-worthy.
Actually pride myself on being able to admit that without shame. So few can.
"Whip me!" pleads the adom player. The rng replies... "No."