Revlgking wrote:
"My definition is my definition"

Wonderful. But my definition is an invisible purple rhinoceros so I am both as correct as you and as incorrect as you and thus nothing of substance is proven.

Now I realize the fact that this is a science forum, where people use critical thinking skills rather than just accepting the gibberish d'jour may be unusual for you, but please try to abide by the scientific method while here instead of pontification.

Here is the scientific method:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Which part of what you just read allows you to have a personal definition?

If you want to discuss religion I'll gladly do so as Kate seems to be willing to tolerate such nonsense. But if you are going to use words like "prove" then I intend to hold you to a standard of integrity that likely is foreign to the pulpit.

DA Morgan