a thread for chiplee

[chiplee]

We are not born religious, it has to be taught, and many prefer fact based education before faith based superstition. If you repeat a falacy often enough it becomes believable but it does not ever become true. As much as you would wish it to be so, it does nothing more than polute young minds with fantastic, impossible mysteries. Holding on to past traditions interfere with human progress and if you choose faith before reason you hold a position of mental laziness. Yesterdays miricles are merely the reflection of yesterdays ignorance and you will end up devoting your quality time on earth to trusting in wild superstitions, ignorant prejudice, inherited traditions and unnessary fear.

 

Well welcome to the discussion fellow thinker.

 

[chiplee]

Matter is never created nor destroyed. Energy is matter. The human is made up of energy. When you die that energy has to go somewhere.

 

You also get cold when you die. Hold that thought.

 

If this is meant to be considered evidence "for" an afterlife, as you first posted it, then here's the rebuttal:

 

Here's a borrowed illustrative example from a website I frequent. Imagine a block of ice. Each of its water molecules is fixed rigidly in place in a highly structured and ordered arrangement. The ice is set out to melt. As heat enters the ice, the water molecules are disordered and unorganized. The molecules in a liquid are free to move from place to place.

 

Now imagine freezing water. The disordered and unorganized molecules are placed in the freezer. Heat is released from the water while the molecules assemble themselves into their previously fixed, rigid, and highly organized crystalline structure.

 

Did we just violate the second law of thermodynamics? No! It is possible to freeze water.

 

The process of freezing and melting water is a change in physical state. This is called a reversible process. Chemical reactions are reversible processes. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe does not change when a reversible process occurs and increases when an irreversible process occurs. If entropy does not change then no laws are violated.

 

Directly to your point, and the "cold dead body" thought I asked you to hold, order can be replaced with heat in the universe. As the water melts it absorbs heat in exchange for the increase in disorder. As it freezes, heat is released in exchange for the increased order. Our bodies have used heat energy to assemble the complex chemicals necessary for life. If we were to take a human body and release all of the energy in each chemical bond, we would release the same amount of energy required to produce them. This is the Law of Conservation of Energy. Since no overall irreversible order was created, no physical laws were broken. An immortal being would violate the laws in question.

 

Our structures are possible without god. Highly ordered chemicals are produced everyday through natural processes, and all are examples of higher physical order allowed for in the universe by the simple fact that heat is given in exchange. No laws need be violated for you to turn into dust.

 

Im not saying I buy into reincarnation as you as a whole coming back as a different whole but I could see the energy or even pieces carbon etc used. Even if it's just you go into the ground, you decompose into basic pieces a plant sucks you up for the nutrients it needs. A animal eats that plant for the nutrients it needs some human shoots that animal skins and eats it. Some pieces go back into the ground some pieces are eaten by the human. The human procreates and some pieces are passed between the two humans and into the baby.

 

This doesn't smell of supernatural afterlife sentiment, so is the law of conservation of energy your idea of "evidence" for an afterlife, or just a "Fountain" style case for matter passing on from generation to generation through various natural processes?

Edited July 6, 2009 by chiplee

[Edde]

Well welcome to the discussion fellow thinker.

 

 

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[jszucs]

Wow Chip I really like that^^ And yeah I meant it as the bases I know I can't prove it. If I could I woudn't be working right now :hmm3grin2orange:

 

 

Water however does violate physical laws of mater in when you freeze it it exspands. Any mater always is moving at some level.

Edited July 6, 2009 by jszucs

[macrophage]

Let me straighten all of you who dont believe in God Or i will prove to you now that there is one:

 

HoneyBees and the like that pollenate out flowers only see in the ultraviolet-the only see just those parts that they have to pollenate plus the leaves. If God OR (mother nature for you non believers) wanted them to see ALL the colors of the flowers he would have made that happen but he didnt.

 

So my question for you non believers is who are the colorful flowers for? the answer is you! design is all around us. the world is too complex to just of happend. life on other worlds? you better get proving this because it will take a lifetime to find another planet

EXACTLY LIKE OURS.

 

plus theres many other things you can look at in the world to show of a higher order----the Human Body is the ultimate proof that god exists.

[chiplee]

Wow Chip I really like that^^ And yeah I meant it as the bases I know I can't prove it. If I could I woudn't be working right now :hmm3grin2orange:

 

Ok, glad you liked it.

 

 

Water however does violate physical laws of mater in when you freeze it it exspands. Any mater always is moving at some level.

 

Also not true. Water converts its heat energy to "power" the expansion. Another way to think about it is if you compress ice enough (i.e. put energy into the system) it turns into water, regardless of its temperature. This is why water only freezes at 32 degrees and one atmosphere's pressure. Increase the pressure, like at the bottom of the ocean, and supercooled water is possible because the freezing point is lowered by the pressure.

 

Usually the container you freeze water in isn't exerting enough force to stop the contained water from expanding as it transforms into crystals through loss of energy. If the container were exerting enough force to stop the expansion, then the pressure would be high enough to keep the water from freezing. There is a surprising amount of energy in a small amount of heat, as many of us learn when soda cans pop open in the freezer.

 

[macrophage]

everywhere in life something tells another thing what to do on jobs etc, the body has cells in it that are told what to do or be--stem cells is a perfect xample of being told to be another cell. theres order everywhere in life and in atoms. Atoms have very distinct orbits just like the solar system how can to different things be the same.

[PDX87Starion]

So if the multi-dimensional theory proves to be true... vid here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K_FR_MWMw...feature=related (same one I posted in the other thread)

 

Do you suppose (in the future) paranormal occurrences could be proved by science as something related to these other dimensions?

Scientists think that gravity is relatively week because it has to travel through extra dimensions before it gets to ours. Gravity effects time and space by warping it. What if ghosts and the like are just some dimensional phenomena.... Maybe one that only some people can perceive?

 

 

Also on the end of that video the guy talks about creating a "universe" that would grow but not displace our universe because it would be in its own "dimension".

So if this would be possible for us in the future...or any highly advanced civilization....Do you think there would also be a possibility to manipulate the matter in that universe? If so... even arrange planetary systems to make a "perfect" planet for life??...hmmmm did I just scientifically prove God exists....???

Edited July 6, 2009 by PDX87Starion

[chiplee]

Let me straighten all of you who dont believe in God Or i will prove to you now that there is one:

 

ohh lucky me

 

HoneyBees and the like that pollenate out flowers only see in the ultraviolet-the only see just those parts that they have to pollenate plus the leaves. If God OR (mother nature for you non believers) wanted them to see ALL the colors of the flowers he would have made that happen but he didnt.

 

First of all, brightly colored flowers have realized higher degrees of reproductive success because it made them more visible to ALL birds and insects, not just honey bees. But since you've selected honey bees and then lied about how they see, let's look at an example of how they see. Bees do not ONLY see "ultraviolet" light as you say. They ALSO see ultraviolet light. Big difference. They see in a highly specialized way that does often include a "bulls eye" like thingy in the middle.

 

Primrose with the human view on the left and the bee's view on the right

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/PrimroseDM_1000x390.jpg

 

Dandelion, same arrangement

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/DandelionDM_800x665.jpg

 

"Ultraviolet light, invisible to us, uncovers colors and patterns which draw some insects to the source of pollen and nectar - all hidden to humans without special equipment.

 

This secret color world was discovered in the Fifties and scientists realized that these distinct patterns had evolved to act as "landing strips" or arrows, guiding the insects to the right spot.

 

Because we cannot see UV light, the colors in these photographs are representational, but the patterns are real."

 

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_01/AnemoneDM_1000x383.jpg

 

This is similar to the way bats hear and dogs smell. It's not unlikely that dogs essentially "smell in color."

 

So my question for you non believers is who are the colorful flowers for? the answer is you! design is all around us. the world is too complex to just of happend.

 

Ah yes, the old "I feel really strongly about it so you should be convinced" argument. Powerful indeed, against a child, but I'm not a child, so please present an actual well thought out argument if you want me to take you seriously.

 

plus theres many other things you can look at in the world to show of a higher order----the Human Body is the ultimate proof that god exists.

 

Are you making an argument or regurgitating the stuff that convinced you? The argument from design you're making, or the "teleological argument", is a famously rebutted weak argument that you should be somewhat ashamed of having presented here to the likes of me. We have marvelous explanations for how living things have become adapted to their surroundings and developed all manner of beautiful embellishment to aid in their reproduction. You should explain why you discount these explanations without so much as a cursory glance at their details before you expect me to join you in said "discounting".

 

Just so you know what you're proposing. William Paley first suggested the teleological argument and it goes something like this:

 

1. Everything we've seen that looks designed has a designer. (Axiom)

2. The Universe looks like it has been designed. (Axiom)

3. Therefore the Universe must have a designer. (From 2 & 3)

4. This designer is God.

 

A better known version of this argument uses a watch as an allegory for the universe. It goes like this: "Suppose that you were walking along a beach somewhere, and suddenly you saw a pocket watch lying on the ground. Opening the watch you would see the intricate detail that makes it all work. You would immediately assume that something like this had been designed, that it could not have come about by mere chance.

If you look at the human eye you see even more detail and complexity, and you must likewise assume a designer for the human eye. The natural conclusion would of course be that the entire universe has a designer, being God."

 

Ignoring the fact that even if true this argument would tell us NOTHING about the nature of said "proven God", number one above isn't true. It should read "Many things we've seen that look designed have a designer." Many things we've seen that "looked designed" do NOT have a designer, and therefore, number 3 above, is sufficiently debunked. Although MANY more criticisms of the entire argument exist.

 

"But is there not a very strong link between the Universe and a watch? Is this not a powerful allegory? No, and for several reasons. First, as David Hume pointed out, it is preposterous to compare the Universe to a watch. We know very little about the universe, and almost everything about a pocketwatch. He argued that for a comparison to make any sense it should be made between two objects we have equal understanding about. The dissimilarity between the Universe and even the most complex of things we know are designed is so huge that the worth of the argument is almost zero.

 

Secondly, it can be easily seen that everything we know is designed was designed by living beings from earth. Thus, the first axiom might well be changed to 'All things made by living beings from earth that look designed have a designer.' This shows once again that the argument cannot be used on anything like the Universe, or for that matter, the eye. We could even change the axiom to 'All things that we know are designed have been designed by beings from earth'. This leads to the preposterous conclusion that the Universe has been designed by someone from earth! But this line of reasoning is no less valid than Paley's.

 

Thirdly, watches show marks of being made (marks from milling, stamping, etc.). The Universe does not show those marks. This is another huge difference between the Universe and a watch.

 

Fourthly, we can visit any number of watchmakers we want. We can see watches being made. We can read how watches are made. We can ask the local watchmaker to make a specially designed watch for us. If I showed you an egg and told you that I knew a man who made custom eggs, you would rightly doubt my word, for you've never seen an eggmaker. Thus the conclusion that a certain object was designed and made is based on the knowledge that such an object can be made, more than on the complexity of the object itself.

 

There are still more arguments against the Argument from Design. For God is surely more detailed, sophisticated and purposeful than anything in the universe? Then God must have been designed and created, by a being I will call GodGod. And GodGod must have been designed by GodGodGod, ad infinitum as we regress forever asking "who created that, then who created that, then who created that". If on the other hand we say that God does not need a designer, then surely we can say that the Universe, which is less complex, also needs no designer, assuming we don't have a double standard that is, which few creationists don't. Any way you look at it, your argument fails miserably.

 

And in fact everything science finds seems to indicate that there is no design to the universe. Paleontology, evolutionary biology and chemistry show us that life does not need to have a designer. Astrophysical discoveries tell us how stars, galaxies have formed over eons from more or less homogeneous clouds of matter. The Big Bang theory tells us how these clouds could have taken their current form without any design at all. Everything we find seems to shout at us 'There is no designer! It's all just the laws of nature!' We do not need God to explain our Universe." You have to ignore so much to hold on to faith. I just can't do it.

[jszucs]

Ok, glad you liked it.

 

Also not true. Water converts its heat energy to "power" the expansion. Another way to think about it is if you compress ice enough (i.e. put energy into the system) it turns into water, regardless of its temperature. This is why water only freezes at 32 degrees and one atmosphere's pressure. Increase the pressure, like at the bottom of the ocean, and supercooled water is possible because the freezing point is lowered by the pressure.

 

If your above is also true then explain without water being an odity to physical laws. Since you say when you put presure on water it won't freez yet if you vacume water it will boil at room temp?

 

Im saying water also gets larger when you freeze it, yet all other items get smaller when frozen.

Edited July 6, 2009 by jszucs

[chiplee]

everywhere in life something tells another thing what to do on jobs etc, the body has cells in it that are told what to do or be--stem cells is a perfect xample of being told to be another cell. theres order everywhere in life and in atoms. Atoms have very distinct orbits just like the solar system how can to different things be the same.

 

I think you're trying to get just deep enough to lose us and have us think you've considered it more closely than we have. I'm not convinced that's the case. I think you're a typical believer swallowing the bs hook line and sinker and then regurgitating it poorly in an effort to witness to us as you've also been convinced you must. Study something outside the church library and get back with me.

 

[chiplee]

If your above is also true then explain without water being an odity to physical laws. Since you say when you put presure on water it won't freez yet if you vacume water it will boil at room temp?

 

 

Huh? "Yes, your mom is right. Water can boil at room temperature if the

pressure is reduced enough (a vacuum means zero pressure). Pressure is energy.

 

In general as the pressure decreases, so does the temperature

required to boil a liquid. The boiling point at the top of

a mountain is lower than it is at the bottom, because the

air pressure is lower at the top."

 

[jszucs]

wow Chip I am rather supprised by your response there. That sound like it should have come from me not you. O not that one 2 ago now. Edited July 6, 2009 by jszucs

[jszucs]

Why does water increase in size when everything else decreases in size when you freeze it?

[89Steve]

Not nearly the certainty the religious speak with. I said "in all likelihood", which is clearly true and supported by evidence.

 

"in all likelihood" sounds pretty certain to me. I am religious. I am not scientifically certain that there is a God. Happy?

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that I agree with you that mine is a "grim" outlook, what would that have to do with its likelihood to be true or false?

 

Absolutely nothing, but then again what absolute proof do you have then it is true or false. You have as much proof as the 'brokenquesttsi'. He believes he's felt the presence of God through his full recovery. Who says he's wrong? You should read up on accounts of near death experiences. It's interesting how thousands of people have experienced the same outcome as they're about to die. Sure, it could be them having a neurological break down, but then again what if it is something supernatural? That's where personal belief comes in.

 

 

 

So you're sincerely suggesting that I should put optimism before reality; that I should stop with this incessant hunger for truth at all costs? No thanks. Your input smacks of Pascal's wager, reproduced here:

 

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

 

Blaise Pascal, and I think you would have us ponder how we should bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no chance for payoff in any case. He proposed the best bet, then, was to accept the existence of God. This seems logical at first consideration, but given even a childish second thought it's obvious that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him, and that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods. This necessarily leaves the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic. Not to mention the most obvious fact that God would not reward belief in Him based solely on hedging one's bets.

 

Wrong. I'm saying that maybe you should look deeper then what is on the surface. It's easy to accept something as truth when you can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. It takes a much greater mind to embrace the things that the senses cannot detect. Even science proves that there are things in this world that the human senses cannot pick up on. Why, to you, is it such nonsense that a greater power doesn't exist simply because there is no proof? Along the same line, why can that greater power not care for us? Because there is no evidence to support it? I firmly disagree.

 

 

Oh please present said evidence that there is life after death.

 

Your missing the point. There is NO evidence that there is NOT life after death.

 

 

 

That has not been my experience AT ALL. Nearly every single believer I have EVER engaged has used the word "KNOW", much to my chagrin, and refused to update their stance when asked politely.

 

I'm sorry that's been your experience with those who believe in God. I frown upon fellow believers who say they KNOW there is a God. Knowing, in this case, is simply the wrong word. Maybe most cannot come up with a better synonym for "strongly believe"

 

It's not a stereotype though. It's from my personal direct observation on hundreds of accounts. I have had two people other than you admit it is only ever belief and never knowledge that they gain through faith.

 

Faith is not knowledge. Faith is faith. In this aspect, it seems like we agree. Wow, this is a first. In all seriousness I do enjoy the educated 'debate'(for lack of a better word). I enjoy hearing other arguments when a person doesn't start simply saying "You're wrong". It's at that point when I know i'm debating with a moron.

 

 

 

 

[patra_is_here]

Matter is never created nore destroyed. Energy is matter. The human is made up of energy. When you die that energy has to go somewhere.

 

I need to comment on this, because, you seen to have a fundamental misunderstanding of "energy". basically, "energy" is simply a unit, a mathematical conversion factor, so that you can related different physical qualities to one another. "energy" isn't a "real" thing. it's a term to describe something a very specific way in the physical world.

 

by saying "it's not created or destroyed" basically mean, when you are working with equations in physics, you convert all the units to energy units, and both sides of the equation have to yeild the same value, otherwise, you have a miscalculation in your math.

 

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SPEAKS NOTHING OF THE AFTERLIFE, THIS LIFE, GOD, THE SOUL, OR THE SPIRIT WORLD.

[macrophage]

Chiplee you are one funny Marine but i love you tho, i cant get no deeper than that talk i was saying but the topic is still too complex and i dont have all the answers so i cant get too envolved here.

[macrophage]

So who is the yellow flowers for to see and enjoy? Edited July 6, 2009 by macrophage

[patra_is_here]

oh i want to handle this one too

 

Why does water increase in size when everything else decreases in size when you freeze it?

 

because it does. thats all. it does. the shape of the molecules in a water compound as such a shape that when it's frozen the 2 hydrogen atoms and the single oxygen atom form a molecules that does not fit tightly together when frozen. THATS IT. that's all. anything ELSE you derive from that statement is pure fantasy. it's doesnt MEAN anything that it expands when frozen. it's just because of the shape of the molecule.

[chiplee]

"in all likelihood" sounds pretty certain to me. I am religious. I am not scientifically certain that there is a God. Happy?

 

 

 

Absolutely nothing, but then again what absolute proof do you have then it is true or false. You have as much proof as the 'brokenquesttsi'. He believes he's felt the presence of God through his full recovery. Who says he's wrong?

 

I do, and quite clearly and convincingly if I must so myself. I also say that if he is correct, that fact should call into question for him the nature of the God in which he believes. If that's the best God can think to do with his "supernatural" powers, I've got news for Him, He sucks. There are FAR more deserving innocents upon whom God could bestow great blessings. It is selfish and self aggrandizing to suppose you were "watched over" in some near death experience.

 

You should read up on accounts of near death experiences.

 

no I shouldn't. They're all typical and boring.

 

It's interesting how thousands of people have experienced the same outcome as they're about to die. Sure, it could be them having a neurological break down, but then again what if it is something supernatural? That's where personal belief comes in.

 

or self deception, whatever you want to call it.

 

 

It takes a much greater mind to embrace the things that the senses cannot detect.

 

Is that what you believers tell yourselves to help you get over how embarrassing it is to cling to such childish stories, that you have to have a "much greater mind" to grasp things your senses can't detect? Tell me, if your senses can't detect them, how do you grasp them, and how do you know you're not making it up in your head.

 

Even science proves that there are things in this world that the human senses cannot pick up on.

 

Of course it does, but they are natural things. Nice of God to give us such limited senses that we can't even observe all the natural phenomena around us huh?

 

Why, to you, is it such nonsense that a greater power doesn't exist simply because there is no proof? Along the same line, why can that greater power not care for us? Because there is no evidence to support it? I firmly disagree.

 

Of course you do, but only on the basis of your "feelings"

 

 

 

 

Your missing the point. There is NO evidence that there is NOT life after death.

 

Ah wonderful, you can't disprove it so it "might be true" so I believe it.

 

Copied from above: Science and the scientific method can't "disprove" God or really much of anything, technically, and that's the oldest criticism of atheism in the book. Bertrand Russell so succinctly disposed of this creationist drivel there's really no need for my input. This was Russell's response:

 

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that's been your experience with those who believe in God. I frown upon fellow believers who say they KNOW there is a God. Knowing, in this case, is simply the wrong word. Maybe most cannot come up with a better synonym for "strongly believe"

 

 

 

Faith is not knowledge. Faith is faith. In this aspect, it seems like we agree. Wow, this is a first. In all seriousness I do enjoy the educated 'debate'(for lack of a better word). I enjoy hearing other arguments when a person doesn't start simply saying "You're wrong". It's at that point when I know i'm debating with a moron.

 

Hey thanks for the apology.

Edited July 6, 2009 by chiplee

[jszucs]

I need to comment on this, because, you seen to have a fundamental misunderstanding of "energy". basically, "energy" is simply a unit, a mathematical conversion factor, so that you can related different physical qualities to one another. "energy" isn't a "real" thing. it's a term to describe something a very specific way in the physical world.

 

by saying "it's not created or destroyed" basically mean, when you are working with equations in physics, you convert all the units to energy units, and both sides of the equation have to yeild the same value, otherwise, you have a miscalculation in your math.

 

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SPEAKS NOTHING OF THE AFTERLIFE, THIS LIFE, GOD, THE SOUL, OR THE SPIRIT WORLD.

 

No it does not speek of afterlife, this life, soul, etc. but since you cannot destroy the mater which in itself has energy. It does lay the foundation to say energy or mater "live on" if you will. Even if it was something as simple as a one celled organism feeding off your rotting corps. Or a plant sucking you up for the neutrients. The univers is a big recycler and it will consume and recycle us as some point.

 

I think it is basicly based on what we were talking about like when you smash something down you apply energy, then things are realigned. A black hole destrys on one side and creates on the other IMHO.

[jszucs]

oh i want to handle this one too

 

 

 

because it does. thats all. it does. the shape of the molecules in a water compound as such a shape that when it's frozen the 2 hydrogen atoms and the single oxygen atom form a molecules that does not fit tightly together when frozen. THATS IT. that's all. anything ELSE you derive from that statement is pure fantasy. it's doesnt MEAN anything that it expands when frozen. it's just because of the shape of the molecule.

 

Nothing else I know of does that. So why the diffrence? It exspands when heated and when frozen that is just plain weird.

[chiplee]

Nothing else I know of does that. So why the diffrence? It exspands when heated and when frozen that is just plain weird.

 

In my opinion, man, there are much stranger things in the natural world for you to get bogged down on than this. Find Dr Quantum on youtube or watch the dawkins video I posted above about the strangeness of science.

 

[patra_is_here]

So who is the yellow flowers for to see and enjoy

 

YOU ASSUME THEY ARE FOR SOMEONE!!!!! they are just there. i'm sure there are people who HATE looking at yellow flowers. does that mean god put them there for those people to hate?? even something like "see and enjoy" is such a biased subjective statement. what about blind people?? SCREW THEM, GOD DOESNT WANT THEM TO SEE FLOWERS. oh oh, what about Eskimos, there's no flowers in the snow. even to "enjoy" something is rooted in your brains ability to produce chemicals that tell you that you like something.

 

essentially, it seems, that GOD to most of you just encompasses all the things you know nothing about, which, from the posts i read, seems to be a large quantity of the stuff that is on this planet and in the cosmos. many of which being man made things like reading comprehension and logical arguments.

Edited July 6, 2009 by patra_is_here

[jszucs]

In my opinion, man, there are much stranger things in the natural world for you to get bogged down on than this. Find Dr Quantum on youtube or watch the dawkins video I posted above about the strangeness of science.

 

The scary thing is there are alot more strange things. And this one is so fundimental and close to home yet we have nothing on it. Heck were made of it.

 

I hope when I get recycled I can become oil and then gas and someone will use me to fuel a quest :hmm3grin2orange: