I understand perfectly EvF 
Although I am certain there should be a number of 'exceptions' to our imperfection... and also certain that our current model is far from perfect: the current method is at least organized. Big changes are needed, it does nobody any good to deny this... and the strange thing is this: many would deny change because they feel it is unrealistic. There are still people who think that evolution (Change over time) is unrealistic. People thought gravity, the Earth orbiting Sol, meteorites, and many other real things to be unrealistic.
Just because something is new... and different perhaps... is no reason to call it unrealistic. Is 100% perfection in every way even possible? No, of course not... but you can get very close. 99% in all categories (non-overlapping), unlike 100%, is attainable.
Eilon, I am done debating this age line. I have said my piece, and it is irrefutable: everything is different. As such, a generalization is but a line of best fit, and misses the majority of those generalized. Some get hit dead on, others are slightly nicked, a few are closely missed... but there are also those far from the line. This has not been denied, nor can it be, and even perfect clones are different entities. As I said, I am done debating this... but you should honestly ask yourself if your points are really so true.
You can always take the 'it is simply unrealistic' view... but to be realistic: this view is unreasonable. POV determines one's reality, nothing more... and nothing less. This too is odd to debate, as the act of debating different viewpoints automatically proves it true. I will continue to try to be better than I am... and so I will always try to think about what makes <insert whatever> like it is... and how <insert whatever> could be better.
Although I am certain there should be a number of 'exceptions' to our imperfection... and also certain that our current model is far from perfect: the current method is at least organized. Big changes are needed, it does nobody any good to deny this... and the strange thing is this: many would deny change because they feel it is unrealistic. There are still people who think that evolution (Change over time) is unrealistic. People thought gravity, the Earth orbiting Sol, meteorites, and many other real things to be unrealistic.
Just because something is new... and different perhaps... is no reason to call it unrealistic. Is 100% perfection in every way even possible? No, of course not... but you can get very close. 99% in all categories (non-overlapping), unlike 100%, is attainable.
Eilon, I am done debating this age line. I have said my piece, and it is irrefutable: everything is different. As such, a generalization is but a line of best fit, and misses the majority of those generalized. Some get hit dead on, others are slightly nicked, a few are closely missed... but there are also those far from the line. This has not been denied, nor can it be, and even perfect clones are different entities. As I said, I am done debating this... but you should honestly ask yourself if your points are really so true.
You can always take the 'it is simply unrealistic' view... but to be realistic: this view is unreasonable. POV determines one's reality, nothing more... and nothing less. This too is odd to debate, as the act of debating different viewpoints automatically proves it true. I will continue to try to be better than I am... and so I will always try to think about what makes <insert whatever> like it is... and how <insert whatever> could be better.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
