Atheists Unite!
-
actually atheism is not only towards christian faith.. your god is not the only creator-god in the world.Originally posted by davidche:Guys chill down and lets move to Eternal Hope for debates.
FI has locked these kinda threads b4. The reason she doesnt do the same for this is because there are to many participaters in this thread and she doesnt want to be flamed.
Plus, i guess its not only not-so-crappy thread that can reach such a high nnmber of pages in chit chat.
-
Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:
You are right that the "hows" of gravity has been tackled first, and rightly so that experimental results can validate Newton's Universal Gravitation where gravity is treated as a "force".
Correct me if i'm wrong but science still cannot provide a conclusive answer as to what gravity really is, as in science can explain the how', but arguably not the 'what' and certainly not the 'why' regarding gravity. Perhaps Prof Brian Ridley(physicist at University of Essex)'s book 'On Science' may elucidate the flaws of science more clearly
Of course, there are other natural philosophers at that time was not satisfied with this explanation, but there was no better framework to explain it until Einstein's General Relativity, where gravity became the curvature of space-time due to mass.
"Whats" and "Whys" in general enter the realm of philosophy rather than science, and carry the potential pitfall of the anthropic principle (which argues that everything in the Universe was tailor-made for us). Scientific background can be used for speculations, but without data, their speculations are as shaky as any, including religious ones.we can draw a parallel between this incident and all the debate on bioethics that only came about of late. in both cases we are unsure of the eventual long-term consequences of the application of the latest radical scientific procedures despite all the extensive scientific research. so people tend to use religion to judge the validity and feasibility of such radical ideas and hence giving u the notion that religion is sort of like impeding the progress of science. But have you wondered what if there are no safeguards that keeps scientific progress in check? yes scientific progress, such as research in the field of life sciences, will definitely be more rapid but at what expense?
You are correct to observe that the ethical standards used for evaluating bioethics are usually decided by society. Moral philosophers would prefer that they be consulted for such things because they are more consistent, but government usually used guidelines from the general population which will inevitably include religious moral values. Where the various religions have a consensus this is usually ok, but what if the various faiths are not in agreement?Do u know that the boundaries between the human realm and beast is getting blurred at a frightening speed in today's world?There's this Newsweek article...dunno whether can find online not...by Professor Lee M Silver of Princeton's Department of Molecular Biology that reported the creation of human-animal chimeras by biologists.Think of all the moral conundrums that are brought about by such scientific experiments.And you also heard about beastiality right? Would god-fearing people do such things? Maybe yes but the tendency for a scientist with religious considerations to do so will be much less than a scientist bent on achieving breakthroughs( not the bestiality part lar )
You are assuming that everything that "god-fearing" people do are necessarily moral. Not every "god-fearing" person shares common ethical systems or apply them consistently.So what i'm trying to say is that religion serves as a good and stable anchor for humans while keeping scientific progress in check instead of hindering it.
In so far that religion provides the social conventions it will serve this need for an anchor. Where social conventions are derived from other sources (such as cultural and historical), it will not.Just to sidetrack a little, dun you think that that Edward Jenner guy is like taking potshots in the dark and hoping to strike lottery?I know that his revolutionary idea saved many lives but WHAT IF a new and more lethal hybrid of viral disease may just be created all thanks to him and his experiments?? How can he be that damn sure that such a possibility wont occur?
You are right that Jenner and some others (such the scientist who discovered Helicobacter pylori) are willing to apply their hunch in a more heroic way than other scientists. Despite his confidence in this technology he has to convince people that it works, so he used a fairly risky approach. Today clinical trials involving people are far more carefully decided, carried out and monitored. Please understand that all experiments have to pass through ethics approval.
Also, in science nobody can be damned sure about anything. Some theories can produce experimental predictions 99.99% accurate to the actual result, but that is still not 100%. Scientists are aware of the limitations of not having enough support. What I personally don't understand is how can anyone have unwavering belief in things that have little or no support. -
Cos God is dead.Originally posted by Ito_^:i got go hor. young i even attended my cousin's bible teaching sessions.
dun see/feel/hear/taste/smell any god there.
-
Originally posted by banzie:
I am having trouble understanding your points in bold.
Like I said... proof please... No point keep saying this and that and this and that... It slike I can say exactly the following...
After all evolution is still a theory.... carbon dating losses its validity in fact after more than 3000 years. There are evidence that shows carbon dating could have mistakes too... where things beneath soil are seems newer than things above soil...
But seriously... you are pushing everything aside simply by telling everyone go read the science magazine etc... and expect no one actually go do that and come back proving you wrong right? Why not do everyone a favour and prove your claims... Seriously from your first threads till now you had been telling me to go read this and tat... but you stated nothing substatial... haven't quote a thing from the Magazine etc....
check this http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 If you got the prove why not be $250,000 richer?
Everything thinks evolution is the only theory... in fact there was quite a few theories existed.... ( including alien theory unfortunately) but why evolution seems more accepted is becoz it sounds more logical ONLY explain things that happened... even the history of homosapian was debated and changed as new proofs are shown... There are still NO testable data that shows evolution works... Please don't mislead anyone here thank you. Where exactly is life form on earth? Nothign found yet... scientist yet to find... maybe only your so called fossil... Frankly Evolutionist can say all they want but if you look at all the facts... its as hard to believe as others... IMO religion seems easier to believe.
There is no twisting of facts for both creationist... how can facts be twisted in the first place? Everyone look at a coin in its own perspective.... I may see a head but you can see a tail... so who is right? its the same facts looking at different direction...[/b]
I will try to address this point:
"There are still NO testable data that shows evolution works... Please don't mislead anyone here thank you."
Off the top of my head here are some testable predictions where experimental results are in favour of biological evolution:
1. Viruses and bacteria can mutate to more virulent strains or jump host species. HIV, SARS CoV, H5N1, just to name a few.
2. Wing patterns on butterflies and fruit flies can be interchanged between species, demonstrating the modular organization of developmental genes. This underscores the possibility that a few DNA sequence changes can result in significant phenotypic variations that permit natural selection to act upon it.
3. Vestigial structures in whales and snakes that hint at their tetrapod ancestors. Recently a four-finned dolphin was discovered. A specially created dolphin has no need to include the ancestral developmental program of hindlimbs in its genome.
4. Teeth (resembling crocodilian teeth) can be produced in chick embryos when a reptile specific gene is expressed, uncovering the ancestral program of teeth formation. Birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
5. Plants can evolve into another species in one step due to whole genome multiplication (polyploidy). Rice is an example of a polyploid plant.
As I have mentioned earlier I myself is working on a testable hypothesis in evolution, as are thousands of other scientists.
If you are not convinced of truth behind the process of biological evolution or its results and technologies, you are welcome not to use those medicines and technolgies when we develop them.
This will show all of us that you are true believer, and actually have some balls. -
Here is the history of virology:Originally posted by banzie:Sorry not been following up...
But seriously.... Are you saying scientist knows about virus? 100 years ago? Please give sources. You are giving a stand that does not means something but trying to pull it together to make it looks like something....
Edward Jenner knows nothing about Virus... maybe he see the symptom but that doesn't mean he knows it... So you putting it here to says that he actually knows about it becoz of this discovery!? What kind of arguement?
http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/109/introduction.htmlA few years later, in 1898, Martinus Beijerinick confirmed & extended Iwanowski's results on tobacco mosaic virus & was the first to develop the modern idea of the virus, which he referred to as contagium vivum fluidum ('soluble living germ').
You claim that scientists know nothing about viruses 100 years ago. Here I show you that they were well aware of it at least 108 years ago, and arguably longer.
I just owned your a s s, so please just admit it and don't play any more word games. -
This statement is incomplete.Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:i cannot blame davidche for lauging at nus superstar.. but "strong foundation of evolution" is really laughable.. haha.. darwin's theory is like a jigsaw puzzle full of missing pieces.. no offence, but if u r a true evolutionist, u will noe the foundation isn't "strong" as u claimed..
Modern evolutionary theory is not only Darwin's contribution, but includes other scientists like Wallace, Dobzhansky, Ohta and many others.
Darwin's main contribution is the idea of biodiversity via natural selection. Many of the details were discovered by thousands of other scientists using fossil evidence, comparative anatomy and more recently developmental biology and genomics techniques.
Darwin's original idea lacks details but modern evolutionary biology has progressed far beyond that. The foundation of evolutionary biology is strong and new insights are on the horizons to strengthen it even further.
As for your jigsaw puzzle analogy, please note that all scientific knowledge is incomplete, be it evolutionary theory or gravitation or quantum mechanics. That has not stopped us from learning more about Nature and applying our knowledge to useful effect. -
Just to clarify...Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:Becos creationism is a theory, not based on actual facts and scientifically proven, it is difficult for it to overcome the strong foundation of evolutionism.
Creationism is not a theory, because in science "theories" are equivalent to "law" or "fact". Creationism is an idea that has yet to generate a falsifiable, testable hypothesis that is backed by scientific evidence. -
I am having trouble understanding your points in bold.
I will try to address this point:
"There are still NO testable data that shows evolution works... Please don't mislead anyone here thank you."
Since you could test it why not replicate a evolution for us and make a monkey into human? Gravity you can simply test by throwing a ball into the air and see it fall... Evolution? Show me
Off the top of my head here are some testable predictions where experimental results are in favour of biological evolution:
1. Viruses and bacteria can mutate to more virulent strains or jump host species. HIV, SARS CoV, H5N1, just to name a few.
Viruses and bacteria are very simple organism... You are simply comparing to it and do you know how big and sophiscated you are to it? Mutation is not evolution... A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. You don't expect a bacteria to grow another arms in a year simply you see there is such a need. I think you imagine you'll grow another arms for the next 100,000 years you'll also not grow another arms.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
2. Wing patterns on butterflies and fruit flies can be interchanged between species, demonstrating the modular organization of developmental genes. This underscores the possibility that a few DNA sequence changes can result in significant phenotypic variations that permit natural selection to act upon it.
3. Vestigial structures in whales and snakes that hint at their tetrapod ancestors. Recently a four-finned dolphin was discovered. A specially created dolphin has no need to include the ancestral developmental program of hindlimbs in its genome.
4. Teeth (resembling crocodilian teeth) can be produced in chick embryos when a reptile specific gene is expressed, uncovering the ancestral program of teeth formation. Birds are descendants of dinosaurs.
5. Plants can evolve into another species in one step due to whole genome multiplication (polyploidy). Rice is an example of a polyploid plant.
As I have mentioned earlier I myself is working on a testable hypothesis in evolution, as are thousands of other scientists.
If you are not convinced of truth behind the process of biological evolution or its results and technologies, you are welcome not to use those medicines and technolgies when we develop them.
This will show all of us that you are true believer, and actually have some balls.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God.
Seriously I don't know where you learn your science, but even evolutionist daren't say they could test evolution and you could.... -
Points been laid and words been made.
God or no god,
Respect isn't a word existed for neglectance and ignorance.
Atheists or not.
Hold your words,
For your own faith to lie in where it should be,
there shall never be one who tells the right or wrong,
till the day god is proven to be true or not.
Those who chose to believe,
We have to respect their decision,
Those who do not,
We have to respect their decision too.
I believe this thread could have been made less insulting,
and people who post here,
Antheists or not,
Do not show how their respect for life,
holds.
If the point is to argue about your own egoistic values or believes,
please stop cause it's just making no ground here.
People with Religon,
People without.
Whose right
Whose wrong
No one has the right to judge,
Not even god,
Not even Science. -
Originally posted by banzie:
Suddenly your English becomes so fluent, and I realize you are just cut-and-pasting without quoting the source.
Viruses and bacteria are very simple organism... You are simply comparing to it and do you know how big and sophiscated you are to it? Mutation is not evolution... A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. You don't expect a bacteria to grow another arms in a year simply you see there is such a need. I think you imagine you'll grow another arms for the next 100,000 years you'll also not grow another arms.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.
Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God.
Seriously I don't know where you learn your science, but even evolutionist daren't say they could test evolution and you could.... -
I think the discussion has drifted to creationism vs Science. Since that is under science's pasar, my debate is legit.Originally posted by Sekundes:Points been laid and words been made.
God or no god,
Respect isn't a word existed for neglectance and ignorance.
Atheists or not.
Hold your words,
For your own faith to lie in where it should be,
there shall never be one who tells the right or wrong,
till the day god is proven to be true or not.
Those who chose to believe,
We have to respect their decision,
Those who do not,
We have to respect their decision too.
I believe this thread could have been made less insulting,
and people who post here,
Antheists or not,
Do not show how their respect for life,
holds.
If the point is to argue about your own egoistic values or believes,
please stop cause it's just making no ground here.
People with Religon,
People without.
Whose right
Whose wrong
No one has the right to judge,
Not even god,
Not even Science. -
Pls dont pull the subject away. Im not trying to disaprove them here in my post AT ALL. We secure the fact that Science cant prove God first. Only then can we move on. Dont suddenly pull some stuffs in and distract the whole discussion.Originally posted by Ito_^:not at all. pls read back posts for answers.
dun forget there is also brahma and a host of other deities and gods that claim to create the universe. u can't disprove them either, other than calling them and their followers, devils, heretics and pagans - then say you love em all the same.
So do you agree with what i have posted?
refexactly, so again we have come to the conclusion that science cant prove everything.
The reason science cant determine if God exists is because science isnt large, or good enough for God.
Simply put it this way. A Singapore national library database may be big, but it is considered small when compared to the USA library database. Yes there may be some info that singapore and USA library both have, but USA will have somethings more.
Image 1.1
Singapore lib =========
USA library ===============
Singapore lib is like science and USA library is like the truths. There are stuffs that science havent found but truth already has.
is it logical that supposedly the existence of God is the extra "===" part, which science has not yet found? -
Originally posted by Cystaire:I think the discussion has drifted to creationism vs Science. Since that is under science's pasar, my debate is legit.
-
Well legit or not,Originally posted by Cystaire:I think the discussion has drifted to creationism vs Science. Since that is under science's pasar, my debate is legit.
Its not working.
But can't we just stop pitting bulls against each others egos ?
From The topic : "Atheists Unite!"
it Became : "Atheists Logic & Science Vs Non- Atheists Religons "
Seriously,
Putting your points across is fine,
but doing it to a point to slam it into each others face hard is a bit of over board don't you guys think ? -
His joke is enhanced when he adds the sunglasses in.Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:i cannot blame davidche for lauging at nus superstar.. but "strong foundation of evolution" is really laughable.. haha.. darwin's theory is like a jigsaw puzzle full of missing pieces.. no offence, but if u r a true evolutionist, u will noe the foundation isn't "strong" as u claimed.. -
Originally posted by Sekundes:Well legit or not,
Its not working.
But can't we just stop pitting bulls against each others egos ?
From The topic : "Atheists Unite!"
it Became : "Atheists Logic & Science Vs Non- Atheists Religons "
Seriously,
Putting your points across is fine,
but doing it to a point to slam it into each others face hard is a bit of over board don't you guys think ?
Thanks for the reminder. I am not an atheist. I am only against pseudoscientific nonsense. -
Originally posted by davidche:
[/quote]
Pls dont pull the subject away. Im not trying to disaprove them here in my post AT ALL. We secure the fact that Science cant prove God first. Only then can we move on. Dont suddenly pull some stuffs in and distract the whole discussion.
So do you agree with what i have posted?
ref
[quote]exactly, so again we have come to the conclusion that science cant prove everything.
The reason science cant determine if God exists is because science isnt large, or good enough for God.
Simply put it this way. A Singapore national library database may be big, but it is considered small when compared to the USA library database. Yes there may be some info that singapore and USA library both have, but USA will have somethings more.
Image 1.1
Singapore lib =========
USA library ===============
Singapore lib is like science and USA library is like the truths. There are stuffs that science havent found but truth already has.
is it logical that supposedly the existence of God is the extra "===" part, which science has not yet found?
So your points got across.
Thank you have a nice day.
Please don't press on this dispute.
Regardless of which, this is more like a different amplitude from where it is viewed from any posters.
Sigh...
(P.S. I'm wondering why US is used not England ?) -
Even though i might say i'm a atheist.Originally posted by Cystaire:
Thanks for the reminder. I am not an atheist. I am only against pseudoscientific nonsense.
I'm not really into science or atheist stuff here,
but its does sounds like a war then a discussion or a thread in here. =_=" -
Actually if it is established that science cannot be used to prove God then creationism and intelligent design would be irrelevant, which is fine by me.Originally posted by davidche:
However the issue is not so simple. Science can only investigate Nature, so by right the supernatural are out of bounds. But yesterday's supernatural has become today's natural. Nobody really knows what the boundaries of Nature are. -
Yes, a rather passionate discussion it is... but not a war.Originally posted by Sekundes:Even though i might say i'm a atheist.
I'm not really into science or atheist stuff here,
but its does sounds like a war then a discussion or a thread in here. =_="
I only hope that people get their science facts from legit sources and not learn all of their science from pseudoscience websites.
So that they will not miss out on the important discoveries ahead and say "oh it's just evolutionism, not REAL science!"
That would be rather sad. -
I would be guessing which all comes from a website like wikipedia. rofl...Originally posted by Cystaire:Yes, a rather passionate discussion it is... but not a war.
I only hope that people get their science facts from legit sources and not learn all of their science from pseudoscience websites.
So that they will not miss out on the important discoveries ahead and say "oh it's just evolutionism, not REAL science!"
That would be rather sad.
Just keeping things down would be better... sigh.. -
But even wiki has the reference listOriginally posted by Sekundes:I would be guessing which all comes from a website like wikipedia. rofl...
Just keeping things down would be better... sigh..
If dont trust wiki, at least look up the references
Even wiki content got referencing you noe -
Good point.Originally posted by laurence82:But even wiki has the reference list
If dont trust wiki, at least look up the references
Even wiki content got referencing you noe
One way of separating science from pseudoscience is to look at the references.
If you key in "biological evolution" in PubMed you get 114,545 articles.
If you key in "creationism" you get 52 articles.
Which do not support creationism.
Scientists may have different religions and believe in different Gods, but they are united against creationism or intelligent design, which is pseudoscientific nonsense. -
i where got pull what subject away. someone already replied to this question several times in this topic alone, im not gonna repeat.Originally posted by davidche:Pls dont pull the subject away. Im not trying to disaprove them here in my post AT ALL. We secure the fact that Science cant prove God first. Only then can we move on. Dont suddenly pull some stuffs in and distract the whole discussion.
So do you agree with what i have posted?
ref
and in case, u missed this part.
not at all. pls read back posts for answers. -
Does it matter? The point here isn't it about getting knowledge from your sources to prove who is right? So where is your points from your science magazines?Originally posted by Cystaire:Suddenly your English becomes so fluent, and I realize you are just cut-and-pasting without quoting the source.