Tammy, Amesh, the reason that I replied to the moral issue is to get people to think; not to revert back and forth sentiments of personal justification of personally held beliefs with practically no substantiation either way. Animal man (and I mean that as no insult) cannot explain that which he cannot perceive. Thus, Dr. Adalja, is correct in a sense only confined to relativity; i.e., he doubts therefore his is. There is nothing to add, nor subtract to a mind captivated by limitation. It is only through experience perception believes the unseaming truth. Were a tiny seed placed in front of an unsuspecting child and told a giant oak stands within, he would either accept it gladly because of youthful imagination, or simply say the tree can't fit. Certain ..things.. in this world are left to thought, and just as that seed needs the proper nourishment to transform into its intended being, so does the perception. Morality is only "taught" in the sense that, as botany is to the seed, so is the "code" to morality. But both botany and the code is relevant to the mind inquiring.