Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/05/2007 02:44:05 PM · #426

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm not necessarily trying to prove God at this point, just the futility of Materialism.

I'm interested in knowing more about how you propose that quantum uncertainty lead to organized thoughts and then choices? I've heard people say this before, but I've never understood the logic in thinking random chaos is behind organization.

BTW, Shannon, I'm giving up on you. You are just pushing my buttons now. I need to count to ten and step away from the keyboard... :)

Honestly, I don't have any proposition of how that might work (I would have to be much smarter). I simply said that's what I believe. Ultimately, I think belief is what these types of conversations come down to. I believe in science and I think there are many answers that it will yet uncover. I believe that thought and self-determination are probably rooted in quantum mechanics. But I certainly can't know this. And if someone chooses to believe otherwise, that's their perogative and I respect that, so long as that respect is a two-way street (and I am not implying that it is not in your case).

I totally respect that position.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2007 02:48:04 PM · #427

Here is Chapter 4 of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's not that long, but I find it a very interesting argument. He uses our innate sense of "right and wrong" to make his argument, but I think our innate sense of "free will and control" could easily be substituted.

____________________________________________
Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones and
trees and things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be
anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is governed by
certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a
certain way. The so-called laws may not be anything real-anything above and
beyond the actual facts which we observe. But in the case of Man, we saw
that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must
be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this
case, besides the actual facts, you have something else-a real law which we
did not invent and which we know we ought to obey.
I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live
in. Ever since men were able to think, they have been wondering what this
universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views
have been held. First, there is what is called the materialist view. People
who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and
always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in
certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce
creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand
something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another
thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right
temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on
this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the
living creatures developed into things like us. The other view is the
religious view. (*) According to it, what is behind the universe is more
like a mind than it is like anything else we know.
----
[*] See Note at the end of this chapter.
----
That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one
thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes
we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like
itself-I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not
think that one of these views was held a long time ago and that the other
has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men both
views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the
right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It
watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run,
however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the
telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th
and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to
such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying
anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more
scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this
is the job of science- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But
why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind
the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a
scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will
have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some
different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement
that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can
make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the
journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of
half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is
really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so
that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that
the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?"
"Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?
Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one
thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we
could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not
merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside
information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find
themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite
forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice
the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study
electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able
to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would
never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he?
for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about
what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind
the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying
them from outside, could never hope to discover it.
The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know
whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or
whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that
power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality
which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is
only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely
our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way
round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not
show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the
architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in
that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be
inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in
a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely
this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect
to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases,
where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not. Suppose someone
asked me, when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving
little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters?
I should reply, "Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I
find it does contain a letter." And if he then objected, "But you've never
seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting," I
should say, "Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not
addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the
ones I am allowed to open." It is the same about this question. The only
packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that
particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I
am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain
way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree
I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other
people in the street get the same letters as I do. I should expect, for
instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity-that whereas
the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human
nature, He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. But I
should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in
both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.
Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a
hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a
Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law
urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when
I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like
anything else we know-because after all the only other thing we know is
matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. But,
of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person. In the
next chapter we shall see if we can find out anything more about it. But one
word of warning. There has been a great deal of soft soap talked about God
for the last hundred years. That is not what I am offering. You can cut all
that out.
Note -In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on
the air, I mentioned only the Materialist view and the Religious view. But
to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force
philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest
expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound
ones in those of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small
variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to
Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a
Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they
mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life
into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view
is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense
in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This
seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative
Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort
of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are
feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the
whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to
think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and
carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something
rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and
no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned
about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can
switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of
religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of
wishful thinking the world has yet seen?

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:51:32.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/05/2007 02:50:52 PM · #428

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here is Chapter 4 of Mere Christianity.

Might be a good idea to include C.S. Lewis's name as the author in your intro to the chapter, Jason :-)

R.

01/05/2007 02:51:28 PM · #429

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Of course not, but a quantum effect over billions of years can apparently initiate a series of events that lead to the development of a brain capable of making a choice.

If that isn't a statement made on faith, I'm not sure what is.

It is indeed speculative, but it's also a statement based upon very real processes of physics, the current understandings of science and paleontology, and the extreme odds against a similar result being artificially manufactured.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:55:32.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

01/05/2007 02:54:59 PM · #430

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that isn't a statement made on faith, I'm not sure what is. Welcome to the club.

One can have faith without it being religious, no? I choose to put my faith in science, even knowing that it is incomplete and often wrong. I have only performed a few basic scientific experiments in college, so most everything that I take from science I have to take on faith. But it is the transparency of science that appeals to me and gives me faith.

Nicely put (though as Bear later noted, belief (faith) in science is not the same "club" as belief in the unprovable). ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:11:23.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

01/05/2007 03:02:43 PM · #431

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That is a very interesting read. What bothers me about it though is this: Lewis is saying that what makes him believe in God is that there is a Law of Human Nature (which I read from this as a set of moral values) that is above and beyond (or at least separate) from the Law of Nature. He doesn't allow for the possibility that these moral values could be a result of the Law of Nature in the first place and that they instead must come from another source.

Edit to add: This is not to say that there is not God. I just object to trying to use some sort of logic to prove or disprove that existence. That logic invariably falls apart.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:03:44.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2007 03:06:09 PM · #432

Originally posted by eqsite:

That's true as far as it goes, but it's skirting the narrower meaning of "faith" that pertains in a context like this thread. To put it simply, if a thing is knowable or provable then faith does not enter the picture. To say "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" is to misuse the term "faith", which is properly reserved (in the context of this thread, at least) for "a core belief maintained in the absence of proof".

One may have faith in God, who is utterly unknowable, and this is a different order of faith than one has, as a child, in one's mother, who is infinitely more knowable than God.

Now, I know full well that these words can be taken and twisted into teapot fantasies, but please don't bother. I doubt that anyone who reads this, theist or atheist alike, will truly misunderstand what I am saying.

R.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

01/05/2007 03:07:10 PM · #433

Originally posted by eqsite:

Yup, it starts with the assumption of a higher law and uses that higher law to justify the existence of well, the higher law.

Its like starting with the axiom 'god exists' and using it to prove god exists - well, okay, but you haven't said anything particularly interesting outwith that set of axiomatic assumptions. That's why its a belief system or religion and the application of logic beyond that fundamental set of beliefs always seems faintly pointless to me.

You either have that fundamental faith or not, using logic to try to justify it is always a waste of time.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:09:13.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

01/05/2007 03:33:30 PM · #434

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Your point is taken, and I don't want to get into a semantics discussion (Hell, I didn't want to get into this whole conversation in the first place -- how's that for free will!). My point was simply this: Those who believe in science where it directly opposes religous belief, do so as much on faith as those who take the opposite view. Except for the rare few who actually perform the experiments and validate the results, the rest are putting their faith in those results without verifying them themsevles. The choice comes down to where you want to put your faith.

01/05/2007 03:41:06 PM · #435

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

To say "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow" is to misuse the term "faith", which is properly reserved (in the context of this thread, at least) for "a core belief maintained in the absence of proof".

But that's the big pink teapot in the room that nobody talks about (for a while) in the midst of all the subsequent logical argument, built on top of that foundation. And yes, science certainly has its own shaky set of fundamental principles, but they are different. Which is why transferring arguments from one to the other ends up being a bit futile.

If I start with the basic idea that 1+1=0 (which is entirely valid as an axiom and is how your computer works) and you start with the idea that 1+1=2, anything we build upon that then talk about in terms of the other, will have an appearance of meaning but lack relevance, fundamentally.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:42:50.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/05/2007 03:41:39 PM · #436

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is Chapter 4 of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's not that long, but I find it a very interesting argument. He uses our innate sense of "right and wrong" to make his argument, but I think our innate sense of "free will and control" could easily be substituted.
...

That is a very interesting read. What bothers me about it though is this: Lewis is saying that what makes him believe in God is that there is a Law of Human Nature (which I read from this as a set of moral values) that is above and beyond (or at least separate) from the Law of Nature. He doesn't allow for the possibility that these moral values could be a result of the Law of Nature in the first place and that they instead must come from another source.

Edit to add: This is not to say that there is not God. I just object to trying to use some sort of logic to prove or disprove that existence. That logic invariably falls apart.

You'll have to read the rest of the argument. It's a really quick read. In fact, someone posted it online (although I'm guessing this violates copyright). I'll link you. Do recall it was written in the 50s, so some of the scientific detail may have changed (he's not ignorant of what was current knowledge).

Mere Christianity by CS Lewis

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:43:33.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/05/2007 03:43:55 PM · #437

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In fact, someone posted it online (although I'm guessing this violates copyright).

Thankfully, until Disney screws it up entirely, stuff written in the 50s shouldn't still be copyrighted.

On the way to look for more, I happened across a much more appropriate comment, from another Lewis

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished awayâ��
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 15:47:17.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/05/2007 03:57:36 PM · #438

Originally posted by eqsite:

Precisely so. Any theory or opinion regarding the entire formation of the world as we know it is frankly coming down to guess work because, at this point, we just don't know. We have not been able to fully theorize the creation of all things yet (current theories do involved unproven and invisible forces - they attribute it to physics, though, on an assumption that physics must be involved) and we certainly haven't been able to test it. Science has not answered this with anything other than theory and religion has brought it's own theory to the table. Which is how this thread got to be so long - neither is provable nor disprovable.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Nicely put (though as Bear later noted, belief (faith) in science is not the same "club" as belief in the unprovable). ;-)

As I stated above, science has NOT proven these things. They've conducted thought experiments and come up with theories. Thought experiments certainly don't hold a lot of water as far as provable goes. So, science, welcome to the unprovable club.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Once again, you assume that the current state of the universe is somehow intended.

If you assume that there is a single universe (after all, we have no evidence of others), then what are the odds that we came about through the series of events that have taken place? I would say - almost infinitely impossible. However, at the same time, every event that has occurred for the universe to form in its current state was possible and generally probable.

In order for the universe to be just as it is, which steps must god have guided? Surely "none of them" - given that the outcome of every event has been probable or possible without his direction.

So - you have bamboozled yourself by taking the astronomical chances of a sequence turning out just so, and attributing miraculous qualities to it (when - as we have demonstrated, long sequences of probable events still results in an astronomically unlikely specific pattern of events).

While at the same time you are assuming that the universe was not intended. I confess my assumptions freely but you are making just as much an assumption as I am. We both agree that the formation of the universe is not betting odds outside of hindsight. While I say that miraculous qualities may be involved, you're of the opinion that there is nothing miraculous involved. Either way, these are both opinions - opinions based on the same evidence. In addition to all that, if a God was responsible for the universe as we know it, I do favor an engineering God who has built a machine. If the physics are discovered, that's only reasonable.

And what steps must god have guided? None. All. 4. Who knows, right? We haven't figured out exactly what forces were involved. Indeed, science has many theories involving invisible forces, so I, personally, couldn't discount any theories simply because they involve invisible and heretofore unproven forces.

I think you are assuming that I am taking a standpoint that I am not. I am not saying there IS a god. I am not saying there isn't. I'm saying that there might be a god - any god. They simply cannot be discounted. This is an argument that is entirely based on what feels right and what seems reasonable - 'feels right' and 'seems reasonable' are not situations which are completely defined. They are, instead, subjective. And while you may find invisible and mysterious forces unbelievable, I've heard enough bantied around the scientific community for me to not discount any that aren't immediately disprovable. Indeed, a goodly portion of the new scientific theories and discoveries are based on invisible forces that have only gotten to the 'poke at with a stick' stage and aren't anywhere close to tested or proven - but they, unfortunately, are not treated with the same ridicule and skepticism as religion.

- C, ES

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/05/2007 04:01:52 PM · #439

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

Indeed, a goodly portion of the new scientific theories and discoveries are based on invisible forces that have only gotten to the 'poke at with a stick' stage and aren't anywhere close to tested or proven - but they, unfortunately, are not treated with the same ridicule and skepticism as religion.

- C, ES

Though that's the fundamental part of the scientific method, you poke it with a stick, prove or disprove it and move on from there. If however, you start with the assumption that something is 'unknowable' and move on from that to try and build a logical house of cards, is it surprising that it gets viewed in a different light ?

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/05/2007 04:08:05 PM · #440

Originally posted by Gordon:

Right. Should have explained that one a little bit more. While I can understand the relunctance of the 'logical' and 'reasoned' masses to immediately accept the idea of a divine invisible and unprovable as the cause for all things, I cannot understand how so much supposed 'reason' and 'logic' can be used to COMPLETELY dismiss the idea and, at the same time, point at any brand new theory 'proven' through thought experiments as proof against one.

((Heading back to work! You guys have fun!))

- C, ES

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 16:08:15.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/05/2007 04:23:13 PM · #441

Originally posted by Gordon:

If however, you start with the assumption that something is 'unknowable' and move on from that to try and build a logical house of cards, is it surprising that it gets viewed in a different light ?

The creator is unknowable both from a religious *and* a scientific perspective. So applying the scientific method to Creation (the cause of the big bang, for example) results in the same unstable house of cards.

PapaBob

01/05/2007 04:25:08 PM · #442

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that.

The universe isn't an isolated experiment now is it? Eliminating all the other variables like wind, gravity, and quantum fluctuations eliminates the number of possible outcomes, so your example is invalid.

Put another way, it may be possible to predict the outcome of two ping ping balls colliding in a wind tunnel, but impossible to predict the outcome of a billion ping pong balls colliding over a billion years. Even if you could calculate all the necessary math for the collisions, you couldn't take into account all the elements of chance. Sometime over the course of a billion years, an earthquake might shake the wind tunnel or the ping pong balls might begin to crumble from age. In the real world, there are always elements of chance.

I am not sure I understand your point, when it gets past the first ball bouncing twice I can not figure out the outcome but that is my limitation. With enough data and the ability to process that data anything could be plotted out but we do not have that kind of brain power or equipment to figure it out! When we can not in our own limited ability to do things do we write them off as impossible and simply chance?

01/05/2007 04:28:38 PM · #443

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Gordon:
If however, you start with the assumption that something is 'unknowable' and move on from that to try and build a logical house of cards, is it surprising that it gets viewed in a different light ?

The creator is unknowable both from a religious *and* a scientific perspective. So applying the scientific method to Creation (the cause of the big bang, for example) results in the same unstable house of cards.

yup... I think (or thought) I said that about a post ago too. But applying the scientific method to a religious perspective is like urm, I wish I could think of a suitably disjoint analogy, like, urm, using a Snark to catch a Boojum ?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/05/2007 04:30:54 PM · #444

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

While I can understand the relunctance of the 'logical' and 'reasoned' masses to immediately accept the idea of a divine invisible and unprovable as the cause for all things, I cannot understand how so much supposed 'reason' and 'logic' can be used to COMPLETELY dismiss the idea and, at the same time, point at any brand new theory 'proven' through thought experiments as proof against one.

It's simply that the evidence gleaned through more concrete proof than mere "thought experiments" provides a more complete and likely solution than alternate concepts with zero proof and direct conflicts with observable fact.

PapaBob

01/05/2007 04:33:31 PM · #445

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
While I can understand the relunctance of the 'logical' and 'reasoned' masses to immediately accept the idea of a divine invisible and unprovable as the cause for all things, I cannot understand how so much supposed 'reason' and 'logic' can be used to COMPLETELY dismiss the idea and, at the same time, point at any brand new theory 'proven' through thought experiments as proof against one.

It's simply that the evidence gleaned through more concrete proof than mere "thought experiments" provides a more complete and likely solution than alternate concepts with zero proof and direct conflicts with observable fact.

Which simply stated means we do not understand it... lol

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 16:33:47.

Apple iPhone 5

01/05/2007 04:34:11 PM · #446

Originally posted by Gordon:

The scientific method can be applied to detecting background radiation from the big bang, it is applied to determine the various states that existed immediately after the big bang. Why can it not be applied to the cause of the big bang? I mean, there's only a microsecond or two in the difference... :)

I never considered the question of creation to be an exclusively religious one.

01/05/2007 04:39:22 PM · #447

Originally posted by PapaBob:

With enough data and the ability to process that data anything could be plotted out but we do not have that kind of brain power or equipment to figure it out!

Not if all the data is unknowable. On a basic level, the Heisenberg uncertainly principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. Once you introduce even the tiniest possibility for variation into an experiment, your prospects of predicting the outcome after billions of years goes out the window.

PapaBob

01/05/2007 04:42:44 PM · #448

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
With enough data and the ability to process that data anything could be plotted out but we do not have that kind of brain power or equipment to figure it out!

Not if all the data is unknowable. On a basic level, the Heisenberg uncertainly principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. Once you introduce even the tiniest possibility for variation into an experiment, your prospects of predicting the outcome after billions of years goes out the window.

Again on my point, since we do not know all the variables we assume it is a random uncertanty but if there is a God is it possible he could know more than us?

01/05/2007 04:44:34 PM · #449

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by scalvert:
It's simply that the evidence gleaned through more concrete proof than mere "thought experiments" provides a more complete and likely solution than alternate concepts with zero proof and direct conflicts with observable fact.

Which simply stated means we do not understand it... lol

I don't understand how frogs can cause warts either, but scientific research indicates that the culprit is a virus, not frogs. We may not know all there is to know about the virus, but given that there's testable evidence for one explanation and only written stories that conflict with that evidence as the foundation for the other, I'm inclined to go with science. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 16:48:05.