>         The law of gravity existed before it could
> be quantified and explained by
> scientist. The truth, no matter how simple it may
> seem when you have the
> ability to quantify and examine it, has existed long
> before. In this case
> follow the money trail. This will give you even more
> complex answers to
> questions you may not have had and satisfy any
> belief that something has to
> be complex to be valid.

I'm not sure how this logic applies. Gravity is
anything BUT simplistic. I'm not sure about you, but
quantum machanics completely escapes my limited
intellect. And the "theories" of gravity have run the
gamut of everything from simple superstition (mystical
forces) to the current particle/wave/warped space
explanations (which leave me saying, "Huh"?).

>         How so? Even during the plague not all died
> that came in contact despite
> the fact that those not afflicted ate the same food,
> breathed the same air,
> and slept in the same house. Not even the majority
> were stricken.

Yes, but a higher percentage died during those plagues
than would normally. During the plagues in Europe the
population growth rate actually became negative for a
period of time even though the population growth rate
had been steadily increasing during the period we now
know as the "dark ages". And the European introduced
plagues in Central and South America were enough to
bring the then soaring native civilization to its
knees.

> What is
> the underlying commonalty to those diseased? I would
> say their inability to
> adapt to internal and external environmental
> stresses whether they be from
> mental, physical, or chemical sources or a
> combination thereof.

But, how does a large population group suddenly start
exhibiting that inability to adapt? The plagues in
Europe suddenly appeared in many areas in short order,
and the "course" of the plagues can be tracked. And
then, just as quickly, the plagues stopped. What
factor could possibly appear in all those areas and
then disappear other than something introduced from
outside their environment?

> Our ability
> to adapt is controlled by one system: the nervous
> system.

I would not argue with that.

> I would believe
> germs caused disease if 100% of those exposed died
> or even became ill. This
> is not so.

I would believe that bee venom killed those who had an
adverse reaction to it if 100% of bee sting victims
died or became ill :) Seriously, why would you not
believe that some individuals are more prone to
"catch" infectious diseases than others? And, on the
other hand, that some are more naturally resistent to
disease? I have always been very immune to colds and
such, even when my diet was literally nothing more
than burgers, fries, and beer. A paleo focus for me
has made me "feel better" in general, but has done
very little for me as far as immune system function is
concerned. Perhaps I'm "naturally resistent" to germs
and viruses?

> >But, I also don't think diet and
> >lifestyle will automatically make us immune to
> >"everything*.
>
>         Nor do I. You are assuming this to be my
> belief without me having said it.

I was interpreting your initial statements about germs
and viruses having nothing to do with causing disease.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/