Evolution? How?

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

It would seem a little odd if I said that the only way I would believe in the existence of sound is if I could smell it.

Or that I would not believe that light exists unless I could taste it.

You state that you will not believe in a transcendent Being such as God unless you have empirical evidence. Seems a little odd.

I will not believe that a fact is true unless I have an indication that it is true. Having the being show himself would certainly be sufficient. Failing that, I will only accept evidence that comes from reason.

This may seem slightly pendantic, but start with "What was there before the Big Bang" and see where you end up. Not saying anything will be different in your mind, merely stressing that "evidence" isn't always empirical and as such, can sometimes be no more than a good guess.

As for having the being show itself. . . if only it were that easy.

Once again I must remind you that our perceptions of reality are limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of the existence of other 'dimensions', we are unable to accurately articulate their nature, much less explore their boundaries.

Quote:

Not odd, logical.

How is trying to sense the undetectible 'logical'?

neologist wrote:

Once again I must remind you that our perceptions of reality are limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of the existence of other 'dimensions', we are unable to accurately articulate their nature, much less explore their boundaries.

Sorry, but you lack the background. Even with a couple of Physics degrees, this work is over my head, but I know people doing it, and your idea that we are able to articulate theories of the nature of universes of more than four dimensions is wrong. For instance, I believe that one popular current model, the Supergravity model, of the universe is a quantum theory of gravity in ten dimensions (9 space + 1 time). The extra 6 spatial dimensions are supposed to be compactified to a region of the order of Planck length. Don't talk about what you don't know about.

The human brain has the capacity to perceive as real those things we/others cannot see or prove by physical evidence. Did you see the movie "The Beautiful Mind?" It's based on a true story. Therefore, it is not odd, but logical.

neologist wrote:

Once again I must remind you that our perceptions of reality are limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of the existence of other 'dimensions', we are unable to accurately articulate their nature, much less explore their boundaries.

Sorry, but you lack the background. Even with a couple of Physics degrees, this work is over my head, but I know people doing it, and your idea that we are able to articulate theories of the nature of universes of more than four dimensions is wrong. For instance, I believe that one popular current model, the Supergravity model, of the universe is a quantum theory of gravity in ten dimensions (9 space + 1 time). The extra 6 spatial dimensions are supposed to be compactified to a region of the order of Planck length. Don't talk about what you don't know about.

Not odd, logical.

cicerone_imposter wrote:

Not odd, logical.

Uh huh. That's about as logical as cheddar-flavored light.

The plate tectonics thing and all that, ya know? If all the land mass was connected at some point, I don't see what the problem is.

The human brain has the capacity to perceive as real those things we/others cannot see or prove by physical evidence.

That is toooooo funny!