| Mr.Vicchio is basing this argument, and one that says a lot, on only ONE source. From this fact, I don't think his argument is credible. Find other sources that correlate to this website's claims, from -credible- websites (aka one that's been reviewed by other scientists), and then maybe someone will believe it.
In college, when one writes reports, getting sources off the web from websites like vicchio's is a big no-no (in fact, it's not allowed). What you want to use are journal articles that have been peer reviewed, because those are one of the most reliable resources out there that are accessible to the public. Usually, when I write reports, I only get to use websources like that to cite pictures/images.
Something that's published is highly more likely to be credible than something written off on the web.
Additionally, those graphics are pretty poor in quality. In fact, I could probably duplicate something that looks similar to those on an old microsoft spreadsheet program. Not to base things on looks, but if that website's study is true to its word, and probably spent a ton of money gathering the information, you'd think their graphics to display the crust of their work would be better presented.
Overall, I think somebody's been duped.
Sin is salvation. Without "sin" there wouldn't be a concept for "purity" and without a concept of "purity" one wouldn't be able to enter "heaven." |