View Full Version : Theological scientific creationist pondering
Today I was sitting in a nuclear astrophysics lecture which got me thinking... Basically, in a star, lots of fusion reactions are going on. Once nearly all the hydrogen is burnt up, helium burning begins (as the star is now hot enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier). One such process that occurs is the triple-He reaction, in which two alpha particles fuse into the unstable Be-8 nucleus. This then collides with another alpha particle, which has just the right energy to form an excited state of carbon-12 - this then decays down to the ground state. If these energies weren't so precise, there would be no carbon and we wouldn't exist. Indeed, the presence of this particular excited state was predicted by an anthropic principle.
This alpha capture occurs again to form oxygen-16, but this is the end of the chain. Neon-20 cannot be formed by this process because the only resonant energy level is of incorrect parity, which needs to be conserved.
Damn lucky that oxygen and carbon have the right excited states isn't it? This got me wondering. For those that believe that God exists and created the universe, did He have to do all these calculations? Physics is so complicated I find it hard to believe that anyone would design it that way. On the other hand, how could these things "just happen" without some external factor?
It's a bizarre series of coincidences that have happened to get us to where we are now if you don't believe in a God of some sort.
My own personal beliefs are not in a God but of the natural order of the universe but I really can't get this problem to fit into any belief structure. It puzzles me greatly.
im more along the lines of that the universe could only happen if a set series of event tooks place as opposed to luck.
Im not into physics and if I'm honest I'm not really that bright either but surely with the amount of time that the universe has been existence its only a matter of time for a certain set of events to occur, e.g. what Sierro was talking about.
These certain set of events occur within the first few million years of the universe - on the cosmological scale we're talking a very short period. Indeed, a lot of coincedental circumstances occured within the first 3 minutes of the big bang. Even in time periods of less than a millionth of a second.
Luggage
02-Feb-2004, 17:01
in my opinion, there isnt any way of saying "isnt it a coincidence that the universe is the way it is", for this reason: we dont know how many iterations of the universe it has taken to get this particular one so we dont know the odds of such a thing happening. We also dont know whether life would exist in some other form if the energy levels of oxygen/carbon were different - if they were, perhaps we would be saying "isn't it a coincidence that argon and boron have the precise energy levels to allow life to exist".
its a bit of "aww hell, why worry about it" syndrome really :P
i mean more that if the initial events were different then surely over the course of time then an alternative would have played out.
basically theres loads of ways that it could have happened we just happen to be in this one.
harder to explain thatn think this :P
im more along the lines of that the universe could only happen if a set series of event tooks place as opposed to luck.
Indeed, I believe this is the weak anthropic principle. Or is it the strong one? I really can't remember which is which. Basically it's saying the universe happened like this, because if it didn't, we wouldn't be around to notice that it didn't anyway.
I notice people are replying in viewing this from an almost philosophical/scientific viewpoint. I was hoping for some input from a theologian angle? Which particular belief structures do people have and how do they reconcile this?
phantom
02-Feb-2004, 17:07
the way i look at it, we are carbon based and use oxygen but the only reason we are carbon based and used oxygen is because the conditions were right for us to exist as carbon based oxygen users.
As said above, if conditions had been different then another race could be sitting here wondering the same thing.
So really, we arent by design, we just exist because we was given a chance to exist based on the surrounding enviroment, if things had been different we'd be different, kinda like natural selection and evolution but on a chemical level as apose to a physical one.
It's quite interesting how many people are basically stating their belief in the weak anthropic principle yet I wonder how many actually knew that it was called that... I suppose in some ways it's a fairly intuitive philosophical statement. But still, whether it would be us or another race or no life at all, why do these things have certain energies and certain ways of doing things? If a sapient being was designing a universe, why make it so complicated? If it wasn't a sapient being, well... I am so vexed!
phantom
02-Feb-2004, 17:25
"why make it so complicated?"
Well, assuming for a moment the universe was created by a god and as such was designed for us (and others like us) to exist in, if it wasnt so complicated and hard to explain then at this point in our existance (which as u well know in a universal time scale is nuffin) we would have worked out how things worked (like an MFI kit, insert block A into slot B), at which point we'd have nuffin left to chanllenge us, nuffin to drive for and in effect the universe infact has no point to exisiting as we've cracked it.
The other way of looking at it is that the universe has to be this complicated to allow it to exist in such fine balance to allow us to exist. That could happen either by design or just because everything finds its natural level of energy required for it to exisit (by definition if it wasnt what it was it would be something else anyways) and it just so happens that this is it and we are (one of the) results.
PiMuRho
02-Feb-2004, 19:02
The Universe is both too complex to understand, and too big to travel across. So why bother.
In short, Sierro sucks.
Murasame
02-Feb-2004, 19:07
Put it this way, you cant use simple code to make a really good game, you have to use very complicated code to make good games (yes i know some games are shit no matter how much code u use but u get my point :P)
The Universe is both too complex to understand, and too big to travel across. So why bother.
In short, Sierro sucks.
Thanks for that.
Put it this way, you cant use simple code to make a really good game, you have to use very complicated code to make good games (yes i know some games are shit no matter how much code u use but u get my point :P)
So you believe that the universe was designed by God?
It's a bizarre series of coincidences that have happened to get us to where we are now if you don't believe in a God of some sort.
My own personal beliefs are not in a God but of the natural order of the universe but I really can't get this problem to fit into any belief structure. It puzzles me greatly.
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
Chill dude! and eat a creme egg whilst pondering which came first, the egg or the wrapper ;)
Interesting site that Jolene and one I may well read if I could be arsed to do so.
It's just a topic I find hard to reconcile with other Taoist teachings.
phantom
02-Feb-2004, 19:47
i gave up wondering about the 'why' of the universe some time ago, instead i prefer to wonder about the 'what' of us instead
And what have you discovered about the "what" of us? I think I can understand this question somewhat better than my own!
phantom
02-Feb-2004, 20:06
tbh, i'm still working on it, i've ideas but atm i'm having trouble descibing 'em, the fact i lack the written english skills wont help... also, it does help somewhat if you've been drinking for a few hours when the convo starts... :|
Post later when you return then!!
Right..Marik here, right im not sure if this has anything to do with this thread or not, but i was talking to one of my friends at school the other day and we came to a conclusion the the world is travelling backwards in time i.e the big crunch started the world and the big bang will end it.
Dunno if that has anything to do with this thread
So sorry for wasteing your time :(
Don't know why you decided that, because you're totally and utterly wrong. Ever heard of Edwin Hubble? His name might be familiar to you.
Hmmmm, wouldn't mind a nice bang tbh :)
tbh honest as 'gods' are usually omnipotent im sure a couple of science sums aint much of a problem.
Ahh, wondered when the omnipotent card would be played. Still doesn't quite gel for me though. I can't quite say why. Perhaps I assume far too much human thinking on behalf of a God. Or perhaps its just because I personally rejected the idea of an omnipotent God some time ago.
Hmmmm, wouldn't mind a nice bang tbh :) :o :o
What i was trying to say has already been said for me, cheers phantom ;) .
I did english at school but i think i emptied it all out for better gaming skills :lol:
seirro what are u searching after? is it the religious angle?
Not so much religious as creationist. If you are religious, how does this fit in? If you are a Buddhist, how do you explain this? If you are a true atheist, how do you explain this?
the other view is that we are mortal and therefore finite.
as the universe is described by us as infintie, then perhaps we simply arent smart enought or we dont have the mental ability to be able to explain it or understand something on such a grand scale.
sorry just popped into my head
i read the 1st post and ignored the rest :)
if the reaction didn't happen that way, we wouldn't be here.
it does, so we are
how many other things aren't here cos some reaction happens in a way not to create the right thing?
i rest my case
lastexit [uk]
03-Feb-2004, 20:30
It's a bizarre series of coincidences that have happened to get us to where we are now if you don't believe in a God of some sort.
My own personal beliefs are not in a God but of the natural order of the universe but I really can't get this problem to fit into any belief structure. It puzzles me greatly.
Why do you think the whole thing is set up for you?
the universe developed over 13 billion years or so and has got us to where we are now, and its all been for you or us as a whole?
There have been so many evolutions and extingtions of life as we know it and we are just a continuation of the chain, humans have been around for 0.0001% of the earths 4 billion years of history. You really think evolution ends with us?
Murasame
03-Feb-2004, 20:31
Let me let it straight i dont believe in god, i believe in pure science, religion sucks :P
]
Why do you think the whole thing is set up for you?
You really think evolution ends with us?
No not at all. You missed the point entirely. It's nothing to do with whether it's been set up for us, or that monkey in the corner, or that tree in Africa. Just the way things are now is incredibly detailed and certainly hints at some degree of design... and also at no design. That's why it puzzles me.
When I said "where we are now" I meant the universe as a whole more than human beings.
Murasame
03-Feb-2004, 20:40
The way i see it things are only as complex as we make them, we may think its complex but thats cos our minds have a certain degree of restrictions. "Where are we now?", well we know were billions of years into the universe, but goodness knows how long it will go on for. I have a theory but i wont bother explaining it as i dont have any proper backing for it :P
but theres always at least some pattern in chaos. it may not be the full thing, but why not in nature which is also chaotic
Ventral
03-Feb-2004, 22:16
Damn lucky that oxygen and carbon have the right excited states isn't it? This got me wondering. For those that believe that God exists and created the universe, did He have to do all these calculations? Physics is so complicated I find it hard to believe that anyone would design it that way. On the other hand, how could these things "just happen" without some external factor?
I'm with winky, for an omniscient, omnipotent being it's wouldn't be hard.
Technically there are only two schools of thought. One that the universe was a random act. Just appeared from nothingness to everything. The other is that it was designed, not necessarily by a religious god/goddess/being, nor necessarily be a personal being. Since the universe is still existing and so are we, I'd say we're extremely lucky or someone or something got it's sums right.
err I was being sarcastic.
I tend to go along the lines of multiverses and baby universes. an evolution of physical constants if you will. Im sure somewhere there are universes with larger gravitational constants. Where you cant get too close to your partner because you will start to accelarate towards them. :D
lastexit [uk]
03-Feb-2004, 23:10
opps
lastexit [uk]
03-Feb-2004, 23:51
.
Damn lucky that oxygen and carbon have the right excited states isn't it? This got me wondering. For those that believe that God exists and created the universe, did He have to do all these calculations? Physics is so complicated I find it hard to believe that anyone would design it that way. On the other hand, how could these things "just happen" without some external factor?
My own personal beliefs are not in a God but of the natural order of the universe but I really can't get this problem to fit into any belief structure. It puzzles me greatly.
For all we know there may have been an infinite number of big bangs/universes forming/universes collapsing, cycles before our big bang In this current cycle we are only 14million years into it and the cards have been reshuffled to a solution that is favorable for us. If this has been happening forever who knows what the other big bangs ended up like before they perhaps collapsed and started over again?
This is all true but I like to base it on at least credible scientific theories and there is nothing to suggest there were other big bangs or anything of the sort. Well, I say so, but I don't know much about the baby universe thing, so that might contradict what I have said. Assuming it doesn't though, and working on the assumption that the universe we live in is the only one and only happened once, it's still puzzling.
Perhaps this isn't the best time to participate what with me being fairly drunk and definately tired :D
no thats the best time because ur brain is properly lubricated :E
i still stand by the "This universe seems lucky because it all works and thats why its here. if it didnt it would and neither would we" school of though
my god (pun intended) an interesting topic
a) The anthropic principle can only be invoked if you can say for a fact if an entire range of values is possible. This is certainly not the case at present but on the other hand there is no reason to think this is not not the case either :)
b) I am very much under the impression that all elements upto and including Iron are formed via alpha capture (with the abundance plummet afterwards). So there must be a process that bypasses Neon somehow, taking the shine off Oxygen being particularly special in your example. Parity of course can be violated by the electroweak interaction, so i'm assuming an electron capture or positron emission must crop up.
c) The excited states of carbon et al are purely as a consquence of the quantum properties of quarks and the strong force. In order to state that Oxygen and carbon are in someway luckly you would at least have to show that changes in strong force constants don't maintain the "luck" at a theoretical level.
d) Chaotic systems are indeed harmonic at times at least temporarily, which in of itself explains why people see patterns or design were none exist.
err, and finally what the hell is parity by the way? :)
I think its whether nucleus as a whole acts as a fermion or boson, but I can't remember :)
Ventral
04-Feb-2004, 23:20
err I was being sarcastic.
:lol:
Your sarcasm has logic :)
mick3ymous3
05-Feb-2004, 02:54
i remember watching a documentry where they pointed the hubble telescope at a point in space which they thought was empty for a period of time...
the images it came back with was what appeared to be star systems so far away, that they are further away than the universe has expanded in its time since the big bang...hence the notion that there was something before the big bang happened...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the way i see things, if you think of a god...he/she only exists as long as someone believes he/she exists...if you look at some ancient cultures who worshipped gods...their god became defunct after their civilisation died...the same could be true in the case of say the christian god...if everyone who believed in him died then he would cease to be...
this is not to say that there isn't a being of some higher order out there...i don't like to shit on what people believe in...but this is how i see things in my eyes...
edit:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in reply to your question of whether the universe was an accident or was it part of some greater plan...i'm more inclined to go with the accident side...what kind of greater plan would involve creating a whole universe billions of light years in size and plonk us humans in one of the arms of a spiral galaxy that we call the milky way?
[n00b].eesh.
05-Feb-2004, 11:17
Well, I personally find it really hard to belive much of the stuff.....what was there before god, big bang etc.......
There can't have been nothing ......
Ah cant be arsed to right a long response now........will do later :E
] In this current cycle we are only 14million years into it
I hope you meant to say billion :lol:
b) I am very much under the impression that all elements upto and including Iron are formed via alpha capture (with the abundance plummet afterwards). So there must be a process that bypasses Neon somehow, taking the shine off Oxygen being particularly special in your example. Parity of course can be violated by the electroweak interaction, so i'm assuming an electron capture or positron emission must crop up.
Well, it's only Helium burning up to Neon. Once the He is exhausted, gravitational collapse occurs increasing the core temperature and pushing the thermal energy of the particles above the Coulomb barrier for more advanced reactions, each using the ash from the previous cycle as fuel. Carbon burning, Neon burning, Oxygen burning, Silicon burning. But these occur after the main sequence - our Sun is only at the He stage.
And after Iron, the S-process takes over to create the heavier nuclei.
err, and finally what the hell is parity by the way? :)
It's to do with the symmetry of a quantum wavefunction. Either the wavefunction is symmetric about the origin (even or + parity) or asymmetric (odd or - parity). For some as yet unknown reason, nature likes to conserve parity.
a) The anthropic principle can only be invoked if you can say for a fact if an entire range of values is possible.
Can we invoke the misanthropic principle and all be moody whingy people? :naughty:
Well, it's only Helium burning up to Neon. Once the He is exhausted, gravitational collapse occurs increasing the core temperature and pushing the thermal energy of the particles above the Coulomb barrier for more advanced reactions, each using the ash from the previous cycle as fuel. Carbon burning, Neon burning, Oxygen burning, Silicon burning. But these occur after the main sequence - our Sun is only at the He stage.
straight out of the textbook ? :D
...i don't like to shit on what people believe in...but this is how i see things in my eyes...
why not religion is so full of shit anyways :D
Ventral
05-Feb-2004, 17:21
why not religion is so full of shit anyways :D
It's called common courtesy :P
Well, it's only Helium burning up to Neon. Once the He is exhausted, gravitational collapse occurs increasing the core temperature and pushing the thermal energy of the particles above the Coulomb barrier for more advanced reactions, each using the ash from the previous cycle as fuel. Carbon burning, Neon burning, Oxygen burning, Silicon burning. But these occur after the main sequence - our Sun is only at the He stage.
straight out of the textbook ? :D
I did happen to have my notes on Stellar Nucleosynthesis in front of me at the time, yes :P
It's called common courtesy :P
pfft like religion was ever polite
It's to do with the symmetry of a quantum wavefunction. Either the wavefunction is symmetric about the origin (even or + parity) or asymmetric (odd or - parity). For some as yet unknown reason, nature likes to conserve parity.
Ooh I was so close
ah the good old standard model and its fairly laughable basis on almost pure experimental results and arbitary hypotheseis :)
phantom
05-Feb-2004, 19:45
winky does have a point there :)
Well, I personally find it really hard to belive much of the stuff.....what was there before god, big bang etc.......
There can't have been nothing ......
the human mind has a great deal of trouble dealing with nothing in the proper sense of the world, thus why you have trouble dealing with the concept of there being nothing before hand as to imagine there was nuffin requires us to have something to imagine, paradox insues, brain explodes.
Also, the point raises about us being stuck basicaly 'in the middle of no where' in a universeal sense does kinda question the concept of a god, imo religion is a natural reaction to explaining the world around us when you have no other way to explain it, most religions where formed with the core belife that we are the center of eveything (they also all have the fundimental flaw of not having dinos in their creation story, hehe) and that eveything revolves around us, and while we know in a universal sense that isnt true we tend to belive, even if we never say it, that the universe must revolve around us because if you considered for too long how small and unimportant, on a cosmic scale, your existance is you'd probably go slightly mad very quickly (which explains me, hehe)
hmmm i'm not convinced i put that across well, you might have to read it a few times to get my point, however its nearly vodka time (to aid my higher thoughts) so i'll have to leave you to it ;)
damn straight!
any belief that excludes the existance of the Sauropods deserves to be damned
http://owen.nhm.ac.uk/browsing/images/c42/c004211x.jpg
This is a great thread, you guys rock!
ah the good old standard model and its fairly laughable basis on almost pure experimental results and arbitary hypotheseis :)
I'd say a basis on experimental results is a much better basis for models than many of the high energy / theoretical models that are out there these days...
~~ArdEnuff~~
05-Feb-2004, 20:20
Damn lucky that oxygen and carbon have the right excited states isn't it? This got me wondering. For those that believe that God exists and created the universe, did He have to do all these calculations? Physics is so complicated I find it hard to believe that anyone would design it that way. On the other hand, how could these things "just happen" without some external factor?
Physics is only complicated because of our infantile level of understanding at this stage in human history. Remember that a few hundred years ago Newtons laws of motion were only understood by the leading minds of the day. Today they are understood by most children.
Give it time, we will figure it out eventually. Maybe not in our lifetime of course!
Cheers.
Majestic
05-Feb-2004, 20:22
This is a great thread, you guys rock!
Indeed, good reading ;)
Ventral
05-Feb-2004, 21:43
Remember that a few hundred years ago Newtons laws of motion were only understood by the leading minds of the day. Today they are understood by most children.
Only the basic simple bits, and only because they are taken to be fact and so given to kids to memorise or face exam failure.
pfft like religion was ever polite
Never met a Buddhist then.
~~ArdEnuff~~
05-Feb-2004, 22:26
Newtons 3 laws of motion ARE very simple and that is their beauty. They are taught to children as being fact as it keeps it simple. Newtons laws are not 'fact' of course, they are more approximations. It just so happens that in the vast majority of cases in the real world they can be used to predict motion very acurately.
Cheers.
[n00b].eesh.
05-Feb-2004, 23:05
Right, newtons law.......what ardenuff said
Phantom you are correct, I know exactly where you are coming from but it still doesnt explain what was there before big bang/god..whatever.
Physics is damn complicated, A level is too damn hard for me!
Talking about light, and what it is today, we got onto What is time? and it all got entangled with this.....type of problems with theories about the universe etc............its all very complicated.
God and religion is only one theory like many others.....and this post has taken too long and i cant be arsed with it anymore....
lol which schools did you go to? How many kids could even repeat the three laws let alone apply them?
its got to be less than 10%
Hotel2Tango
06-Feb-2004, 02:01
.eesh.]Well, I personally find it really hard to belive much of the stuff.....what was there before god, big bang etc.......
There can't have been nothing ......
What's north of the north pole?
~~ArdEnuff~~
06-Feb-2004, 10:22
lol which schools did you go to? How many kids could even repeat the three laws let alone apply them?
its got to be less than 10%
Most kids who are aiming to get a decent mark in GCSE physics this summer will need to answer a variety questions on forces and motion. If they can, then they have an understanding of Newtons laws.
Cheers.
Ventral
06-Feb-2004, 12:49
I can't remember the laws (apart from F = ma) but given questions I could answer them. Perhaps also because I did Mechanics at A-level.
And it's definatly the simplicity of the laws that makes them easy to teach. But at GCSE level you regurgitate what you are told, so you don't necessarily have to explain WHY those laws apply (I've been told that as you approach extreme speeds, like light, Newton's laws no longer apply).
There's levels of complexity anyway. Newton's laws as Newton stated them weren't something you could teach to GCSE level, they involve lots of differential equations. However, for most cases, the simple forms (like F=ma) are fine.
I love F=ma so helpful when remembering conversions specailly when equations involve pressure and energy units.
I remember being educated in Newtons laws at standard grade level at least the two dimensional ones any way.
I pressume there is some complicated vector version.
well not really winky given that a vector force is easily broken into individual eigenvector equations that are simple f=ma equations.
Besides newtons laws suck for mechanics problems, the lagrangian approach makes all such classical questions simple. e.g. try working out the harmonics of an infinite line of coupled oscillators (i.e. a solid) without it :)
Most kids who are aiming to get a decent mark in GCSE physics this summer will need to answer a variety questions on forces and motion. If they can, then they have an understanding of Newtons laws.
Cheers.
I stand corrected then, maybe 20% instead :)
Besides newtons laws suck for mechanics problems, the lagrangian approach makes all such classical questions simple. e.g. try working out the harmonics of an infinite line of coupled oscillators (i.e. a solid) without it :)
Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised when we first used Lagrangian techniques for mechanical problems. So very easy comparatively!
but it unfortunately uses maths, so it can't be/ isn't taught to most physics graduates these days :)
well not really winky given that a vector force is easily broken into individual eigenvector equations that are simple f=ma equations.
Besides newtons laws suck for mechanics problems, the lagrangian approach makes all such classical questions simple. e.g. try working out the harmonics of an infinite line of coupled oscillators (i.e. a solid) without it :)
Im sorry but I opted out of the eigenvectors and eigen values questions in my maths exams
Dont need them for the engineering I do so dont really have clue what your talking about :D
mick3ymous3
07-Feb-2004, 00:12
man i did eigenvectors and eigenvalues for 2nd year engineering maths...hated them! i missed them out in my exam as well...
so glad i'm not takin 3rd year engineering maths this year, otherwise i'd be swimmin in them so i'm told!
Ahh, wondered when the omnipotent card would be played. Still doesn't quite gel for me though. I can't quite say why. Perhaps I assume far too much human thinking on behalf of a God. Or perhaps its just because I personally rejected the idea of an omnipotent God some time ago.
Read some Sitchin books, you'll see why you're right about our gods not being omnipotent
I stand corrected then, maybe 20% instead :)
:) hehe nice.
good to see you about leady we can always use your insight in these kind of topics.
2nd year engineering maths was a joke, the only thing i hadnt learned about in school was eigen thingy mabobs and in hindsight i wish i had learned about them :/
this is one of my fall back forums when I fail to get a good argument in the current affairs forum :)
I have no insight though
phantom
08-Feb-2004, 00:23
Ahh, wondered when the omnipotent card would be played. Still doesn't quite gel for me though. I can't quite say why. Perhaps I assume far too much human thinking on behalf of a God. Or perhaps its just because I personally rejected the idea of an omnipotent God some time ago.
Read some Sitchin books, you'll see why you're right about our gods not being omnipotent
I've spent the last few days in a discussion which started off about Bush saying no to gay weddings and somewhere along the line it ended up questioning the existance of the Christian god (and probably all);
As for free well, consider this if you will
God is all seeing and all knowing, yes?
Therefore it follows he knows everything which has happened and will happen?
Therefore it follows that for him to know this all possibilties must be played out (enter quantum mechanics, stage left).
Therefore it follows that the future is already mapped out for us, thus we have no free will.
However, if we have free will then we can change our mind at any given moment as to if we do or dont do something, therefore god cant know it was going to happen (as this would imply he could see into the future, thus the future must have happened), therefore he cant be all seeing and all knowing, ergo he cant be a god, therefore god doesnt exist.
I also reasoned that god was behind the downfall of man, for pretty much the same reason, if he knows all he should have known we'd eat that damned apple so why did he put it there in the first place?
Not sure how that links into the topic at hand, but i thought i'd share :)
Let's talk about the important issues in life, such as...
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA04656.jpg a 300m diameter seashell on mars! ;-)
I think this thread has pretty much died out now. Not bad though, 4 pages!
More nuclear astrophysics lectures this week, I'll be sure to report back to you all :)
this could be a long year :P
Well yes, it's a leap year!
Damn, I made some great threads back in the day.
vBulletin® v3.7.0 Release Candidate 3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.