ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 07:40 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.985 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/16/2007 07:21 PM ID: 62489 Permalink   

Darwin's Letters Posted on the Internet

 

A little more insight into the life of famous naturalist, Charles Darwin, is being offered on the internet for the first time.

The database has added thousands of letters written in the 1830s, during his 5-year voyage on the HMS Beagle, some 20-plus years before the publish of his most noted work, the Origin of Species.

The database now contains some 5,000 letters by and to Darwin up to 1865 and are available at darwinproject.ac.uk.

 
  Source: www.breitbart.com  
    WebReporter: crosimoto Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  47 Comments
  
  Darwin  
 
"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Darwin)
 
  by: crosimoto     05/16/2007 07:55 PM     
  Cool  
 
With the exception of the last sentence, that's a well-written summary.

I'm not getting the relevance of the quote in your comment though.
 
  by: erasedgod   05/17/2007 12:41 AM     
  @cros  
 
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. " - Darwin.

He's said that just because he could not imagine a series of events did not mean that there could be no series of events that could be explained by his theory.


ANd here is that series of events:

http://www.pbs.org/...
 
  by: Ouka   05/17/2007 12:48 AM     
  @Ouka  
 
My only point, though you have EVERY right to disagree, is that aside from the inner workings of his theory, it would be presumptuous to hold the theory as definite proof for the existence or non-existence of God. I did like the way he capitalized the "C" in creator, though I'm sure it doesn't give anything to an argument of Darwin believing in an intelligent designer.
 
  by: crosimoto     05/17/2007 02:06 AM     
  @crosimoto  
 
The only people who view evolution as anything resembling definate proof of the non-existence of god are fundamentalist religious people.

Scientifically, a deity is nothing more than an unnecessary variable, not something to rebel against.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/17/2007 03:16 AM     
  the thing is  
 
that darwin assumes the eye is a perfect structure. natural selection and evolution DO NOT CREATE PERFECT STRUCTURES, they merely work to emphasize advantageous adaptations over generations by way of sexual reproduction

any of these quotes you could dismiss as darwin fighting himself as an agnostic
 
  by: Syoware   05/17/2007 03:29 AM     
  @syoware, all  
 
"...darwin assumes the eye is a perfect structure."

And how presumptuous is that of him?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/17/2007 04:14 AM     
  @cris  
 
I've known quite a few religious people who believe in Evolution and God...

I gotta say though, thanks to the idiots trying to change science classes to fit their religious views, the term "intelligent designer" makes me cringe.
 
  by: tellgar     05/17/2007 07:29 AM     
  Fascinating  
 
to peer into the mind of a man ahead of his time. Darwin had a clarity of thought and of perception that gave him an intuitive grasp of the world around him.

It is fascinating to witness the internal and external dialogue that shaped and developed his views.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/17/2007 07:39 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
I definately agree, although the area of biology is not a favorite of mine. My all time favorite 'ahead of his time' person would have to be Tesla.
 
  by: StarShadow     05/17/2007 08:26 AM     
  @star  
 
I'd agree with that.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/17/2007 08:35 AM     
  Darwin  
 
...wasn't born with his theory. It's something that he has developed. The fact he shows skepticism in some of his hypothesis only proves how good a scientist he was. Origin of the Species comes across as very humble, and portrays him as only being moved by logic reason, not what he wants to be right.
 
  by: EeekiE   05/17/2007 11:51 AM     
  Eeekie  
 
"The fact he shows skepticism in some of his hypothesis only proves how good a scientist he was"

Exactly, and which is why intelligent design should never be taught in a science classroom. It does not have the ability to be disproven, which is a fundemental part of science.
 
  by: hamstertube   05/17/2007 05:53 PM     
  @StarShadow  
 
What no nod to Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, and Borr?

Electricity and magnetism vs. relativity and quantum theory? Not even close to being way ahead of everything.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/17/2007 11:25 PM     
  @hamstertube  
 
Give me a break! Show me one theory on dinosaurs that has the ability to be proven. Even fundamental behavior like living alone or in herds is disputed on both sides.

Did dinosaurs evolve long necks to get at the top of trees or was it to balance long tails that were the plant-eaters only weapon? Were they actually wiped out by an impact? Did they become birds? Was T-Rexx a scavenger?

None of these questions and many other more complex theories will ever be proven since dinosaurs died out 250 million years ago.

That fact never slowed down lecturers and professors of paleontology one bit.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/17/2007 11:33 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
except for the fact that these major theories in paleontology are founded upon quantifiable evidence. They may not be correct, but they are theories based on the evidence discovered. And the theories change as contradictory evidence is presented.

Therein lies the difference between a scientfic theory or hypothesis and "Intelligent" Design.
 
  by: Ouka   05/17/2007 11:46 PM     
  @ouka  
 
quote
And the theories change as contradictory evidence is presented.

Therein lies the difference between a scientfic theory or hypothesis and "Intelligent" Design
unquote

And if contradictory evidence is never presented because it simply doesn't exist due to it being lost to the ages, then dino-theory and your example of intellegent design become one and the same with neither being the better of the other.

Something like the symetry in the statement "I'ld rather owe it to you then cheat you out of it".
 
  by: culver_lake   05/17/2007 11:54 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
That certain dinosaurs ran in packs could be disproven, by finding contrary evidence.
That something did something unknowable, sometime, resulting in life as we know it, can not.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/17/2007 11:59 PM     
  @culver  
 
"Give me a break! Show me one theory on dinosaurs that has the ability to be proven."

Go back and read again - what is fundamental to a hypothesis is that it can be DISproven, as hamstertube said. Nothing is proven in science, hence why everything is called a theory, because science always leaves the door open for falsifiability. Intellegent design has no such falsifiable (or disprovable) hypothesis. Rather than testing a hypothesis by gathering data to reach a theory, ID establishes a theory and tests evidence to prove it, which is completely contrary to the scientific method.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 12:10 AM     
  Unprovability is a hypothesis  
 
Because a theory has no proof to date doesn't make it unprovable. In fact the claim that anything is unprovable is a hypothesis itself, and one that doesn't take into account the intellect of some future generation of observers.

Nonetheless it makes a poor argument as to why something should or shouldn't be mentioned in a class situation.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 01:30 AM     
  @culver_lake  
 
The issue is not that the concept of intelligent design has no evidence in it's favour. The issue is that there is nothing that would count as evidence against it.

Again, that something did something unknowable, sometime, resulting in life as we know it, can not be disproven. There is no conceivable piece of evidence that would disprove that idea. Hence, the notion of intelligent design cannot be disproven, and it cannot be science.

Why should that not be a vald argument against teaching it in a science class?
 
  by: Ec5618   05/18/2007 01:37 AM     
  @Ec5618 et al  
 
When there is nothing available to disprove (count against) a theory, then the theory is accepted as presented. When observations are made that do count against a theory then a new theory usually emerges, either way observations continue.

I have a fundamental problem with the claim that something:
1. is unprovable because to date it can't be disproven,
2. will remain forever disproven due to the nature of the hypothesis itself and the assumption that an observation will never be made to either prove or disprove it.

 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 02:04 AM     
  Speculate  
 
Why do you suppose that is? If it's so obviously illogical to attribute 'an unknown someone, did an unknown something at some unknown time, creating life as we know it' to an intelligent designer...what is broken in some humans that makes them seek for deeper meaning. I'm not trying to discredit, or argue any point I'm sincerely asking for what you(whoever) assumes that it is.
 
  by: crosimoto     05/18/2007 02:08 AM     
  @culver  
 
"When there is nothing available to disprove (count against) a theory, then the theory is accepted as presented."

No, it's not - science is not like debate, where if a statement cannot be refuted it stands. Proper research must preceed the conclusion in order for data to be gathered to evidence a hypothesis. Proper research cannot be done without a proper, falsifiable hypothesis.

"When observations are made that do count against a theory then a new theory usually emerges, either way observations continue."

Yes, but a hypothesis must become a theory first, which involves the lengthy process detailed above. In regards to ID, you're talking about ID being passed in the footrace of ideas, but since it had no proper hypothesis in the first place, ID never paid the entry fee to compete in the race to begin with and has no business being there.

"I have a fundamental problem with the claim that something:
1. is unprovable because to date it can't be disproven,"

Well, when it can be, then the thing can be tested. "To date," it cannot, that's the way science works. Complain to God about his lack of a measurable paper trail.

"2. will remain forever disproven due to the nature of the hypothesis itself and the assumption that an observation will never be made to either prove or disprove it."

Hey, life's not fair, and science is not a democracy. No one is saying ID is disproven by science, since it was never tested to begin with, just that it is not science. Science has very firm rules, and when ID can meet the requirements of science, it can be considered as science.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 02:29 AM     
  @crosimoto Illogical???  
 
For the record,I never used the term illogical.

I'm convinced that "Life as we know it" (your term)and life as it really is, are two entirely different experiences.

My fundamental problem remains unaddressed.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 02:31 AM     
  @culver  
 
To quote Bertand Russel.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

Let me highlight the relevant section.
"if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it"

That is your position. You are making an assertion that cannot be disproved.
 
  by: jendres     05/18/2007 02:33 AM     
  NO semantics  
 
"No, it's not - science is not like debate, where if a statement cannot be refuted it stands. Proper research must preceed the conclusion in order for data to be gathered to evidence a hypothesis. Proper research cannot be done without a proper, falsifiable hypothesis"

Yes it is. It's only observation and experiment that can refute a theory or hypothesis. Until observation is carried out, a theory/hypothesis stands.

The observation is applied only if the experiment is carried out properly. At that time it either agrees with theory or not.

Claiming that anything is unprovable is unprovable.

Now let's return to the proposition that if God is omnipotent can he create a mass so large that He can't move it.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 02:37 AM     
  culver_lake  
 
"Yes it is. It's only observation and experiment that can refute a theory or hypothesis. Until observation is carried out, a theory/hypothesis stands."

It might help your position if you had a grasp of the fundamental terminology. "Theory" and "hypothesis" are not synonymous, and no one with any knowledge of scientific research would make that mistake. Once you establish a hypothesis, it becomes a theory, which stands until refuted by further experimentation. However, ID is only a hypothesis (at best) because it has not been established at all. As it is an unscientific hypothesis at that, no "proper" experiment can be carried out upon it "to date." Sorry, the scientific community doesn't keep every half-cocked idea on the books simply because at some point in the future, the idea may or may not become a valid hypothesis.

If you think these specific terms are mere semantics, you really need to educate yourself before proceeding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
"A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena...The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories...Empirical hypotheses that experimenters have repeatedly verified may become sufficiently dependable that, at some point in time, they become considered as "proven"...More accurately, one could refer to repeatedly verified hypotheses simply as 'adequately verified', or as 'dependable'."

Finally, the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 04:47 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
a theory was once a hypothesis and a hypothesis becomes a theory. By the time anyone gets to talk about it or collect data the difference between the two has long faded.

Please don't quote wikipedia to me it seems somewhat below you. You've shown nothing of your hypothesis, that in fact, hypothesis and theory are not the same.

Believe me, for our purposes of discussion here, they are one and the same.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 03:41 PM     
  @jendres  
 
It seems sad that in applying Russel's logic you will indeed ignore the next round earth assertions or sun-in-the-center claim, because of course they're ludacris. Forget about relativity and quantum theory because they're just teapots.

Godel invalidated Russel's world with 2 sentences.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 03:46 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
"Claiming that anything is unprovable is unprovable."
Have you seen the Matrix? There is no way to prove that this isn't the Matrix, so there is no way to disprove that it is. And by extension, as the existence of our reality in unprovable, nothing is provable.

And there is no situation in which a theory is equal to a hypothesis. Theories are models, hypothesis are testable notions.
Please read up on these notions before commenting again, as it's useless to discuss science with someone who misunderstands the basics.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/18/2007 04:01 PM     
  @culver  
 
"a theory was once a hypothesis and a hypothesis becomes a theory. By the time anyone gets to talk about it or collect data the difference between the two has long faded."

Since data is required to make that transition, that is a completely contradictory statement. Given our world of instant communication, it is also complete rubbish to day that by the time someone hears of an idea, it's already been verified.

"Please don't quote wikipedia to me it seems somewhat below you. You've shown nothing of your hypothesis, that in fact, hypothesis and theory are not the same."

There's nothing wrong with wikipedia as a source for the basics, and if you had an actual refutation of the information my links provided, you would have provided it instead of saying, yet again, "Is not!" Do you have a real argument here, or are you just stonewalling because the facts are completely against you and you cannot admit it?

"Believe me, for our purposes of discussion here, they are one and the same."

Uh, no, why should anyone believe you when you've made it abundantly clear that you do not even know the basics of what you're talking about and show no compunction in prattling on anyway?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 04:25 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
If you don't want to respond to me then don't but please refrain from putting any conditions on my postings here. You have no idea what I understand or misunderstand.

Your comments about the matrix are well put and understandable. They also require exactly nothing concerning hypothesis vs theory. Very often I refrain from posting because of the word games that the conversation usually degenerates to

The meaning of theory or hypothesis has nothing to do with whether something that can't ever be disproven actually exists.

It has been asserted that there are an infinite number of parallel universes all occupying the same space; that 96 percent of the matter required to support the big bang is missing; and that our act of observing can actually affect the thing being observed.

We are so eager to accept universal energy and universal matter, yet so reluctant to even entertain universal mind that the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is relegated to uselessness in comparison.

Every electron is related to the behavior of every other electron in the universe.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 04:26 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
I repeat my hypothesis (or is it my theory);

Claiming something is unprovable is unprovable.

I'm sure that hundreds of years ago someone claimed that it was impossible to prove that the world was round because that would entail traveling into space and looking back at the earth from that vantaqe point, and of course that's impossible.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 04:39 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Wow you are really hung up on the difference between theory and hypothesis. Very well. There's a difference.

<<Do you have a real argument here, or are you just stonewalling because the facts are completely against you and you cannot admit it?>>

What facts? You've certainly offered none, except for links to the difference between the two terms.

Tangents. Tangents. Tangents. Can you disprove my claim that the statement:
Something is disprovable is disprovable?

How about some more personal attacks or would you care to define theory and hypotheses again? Why not tell me not to post here anymore?
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 04:48 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
How gracious of you, to accept that simple fact.

Your claim can only be true if it is possible to prove something, anything. Since it isn't, you're wrong. Nothing is provable, so everything is unprovable. QED.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/18/2007 05:08 PM     
  @culver  
 
Give me a break! Show me one theory on dinosaurs that has the ability to be proven. Even fundamental behavior like living alone or in herds is disputed on both sides.


That they existed?
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/18/2007 05:11 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Apparently you can't participate in an in-depth discussion without exceeding your frustration threshold. I'm sorry you are angry. Perhaps you should limit the depth of your discussions to the difference between words.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 05:20 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
What are you talking about now? You made a false claim, you were called on it and had to admit you were wrong. Don't act like that was a courtesy on your part, and don't act like telling someone off for making false claims constitutes anger.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/18/2007 05:27 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Sounds like anger to me.

Just for the record, my claim is not false. But your arguments are indeed faulty since they constitute the difference between words and nothing of substance concerning theories not disproven to date to be not disproven for all time.

You may think that quoting various sources proves a point. It doesn't, except for the point that you have no opinion of your own.

 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 06:23 PM     
  @culver  
 
"Very often I refrain from posting because of the word games that the conversation usually degenerates to"

"Wow you are really hung up on the difference between theory and hypothesis. Very well. There's a difference."

Do you know why semantics become so much an issue on so many topics? Because one person is often wrong and tries to twist words in order to make a point anyway. Ironically, that was you, and hypocritically, you made it central to your point. But yes, I get hung up on the facts central to a topic.

"What facts? You've certainly offered none, except for links to the difference between the two terms."

Uh, yes, those are the facts I provided and what we were discussing, because your ignorance of the matter allowed for nothing more complex. In fact, this was an argument YOU started, in order to blur lines and prove...what?

"Tangents. Tangents. Tangents. Can you disprove my claim that the statement:
Something is disprovable is disprovable?"

No, because that whole question is completely unintelligible. How about you go back and restate your main point with information I've provided for you and without the attitude?

"How about some more personal attacks or would you care to define theory and hypotheses again? Why not tell me not to post here anymore?"

How about you quote me where I've made any personal attack against you? I've pointed out that you were wrong and loathe to admit it, then both of us evidenced that. Post here all you like, but why not get back to the subject of the story, rather than sulking about the place?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 06:32 PM     
  @culver  
 
It looks like those less charitable than me have already abandoned you as unteachable. I'll take one crack at it, then I'm done.

I think your argument is roughly this: "Although we can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer *here today*, someday evidence may surface that allows us to prove the existence of an intelligent designer."

That may seem reasonable to you until you understand what that means in scientific terms -- that you'd have to design an experiment which can objectively test for the existence of God. That is what is meant by "falsifiability." If you tell me about your scientific theory and then tell me how you tested it, and I can repeat the test, I can independently add to the evidence supporting your theory, or I can present contradictory evidence if that's what I get when I replicate your experiment.

So the scientific problem with the "theory" of intelligent design is that it's a theory that defies testing, at least here today. Might someone someday develop a test for the existence of God? Perhaps -- as unlikely as that might sound to most reasonable people. Here are just two reasons why that's so unlikely:

1) Creation theory must be supported by evidence, not by the refutation of other theories. Essentially, if you could prove beyond a doubt that evolutionary theory is false, you're not any closer to proving creationism. Creationism as a theory must stand on its own evidence, not on a lack of alternatives.

2) The body of evidence required to conclusively support creationism as a theory (i.e. to promote it to 'law' status) is literally as large as the universe itself. If you could show that one atom was created by an intelligent designer, that still leaves every other atom in the universe which could reasonably have come into existence through other means.
 
  by: l´anglais     05/18/2007 06:35 PM     
  @l'anglais, culver  
 
L'anglais, I would add that falsifiability also means that one's hypothesis must be able to fail one's test. So, when disproven, there can be no making excuses for why it is still valid. For example, when the Bible Code was written about a decade ago, when others provided a refutation to it, the author made the excuse that those people just didn't understand his methods - at that moment his hypothesis became unscientific. This is another point at which ID/Creationism falls short, because there is no way to prove God does not exist given the terms by which He is described (including the idea that we cannot understand him).
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 06:53 PM     
  Further  
 
Good point, MOC. You made me realize a few other things, mainly arguments for those who believe in ID and use it as a reason to believe in the Christian God:

If it could be "proven" (for discussion's sake) that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, that's still a very long way from proving the existence of God. For example, why would there be any reason to believe that the universe wasn't created by a being that was only able to create the universe (i.e., that had no control over what happened after creation)?

Why would there be any particular reason to believe that the universe was created by one being, or a dozen beings, or 55, or 100 billion?

Why would there be any reason to believe that the creator was still around?

Why would there be any reason to believe that the creator was in any way related to human religious belief? (Even more fun -- what if it turned out that there was a creator, but that the creator was Buddha, or Allah, or Satan?)
 
  by: l´anglais     05/18/2007 07:24 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
For the first time someone has chosen to respond to me with an intellegent, understandable response. I agree with you, although I find your assessment of me as "unteachable" unfortunate. I don't post here or anywhere to be taught. I do however learn a lot nonetheless.

The only thing I had a problem with was the usefulness of something in a classroom based on its assumption of unprovability. I stated examples of round vs flat earth etc. At the time they were proposed they were certainly thought to be unproveable. The quantum people claim that there are no truths, only phenomena. I believe this. I also believe that every electron in the universe is connected somehow to every other electron. If you look closely to every major religeous text you'll find that same thing stated albiet with different symbols for the variables.
 
  by: culver_lake   05/18/2007 07:59 PM     
  @culver_lake  
 
As soon as the hypothesis of a spherical Earth was conceived, ways of testing that hypothesis were known. The roundness of the Earth was never thought to be untestable.

That it was thought to be unprovable is correct, and it has been explained to you that EVERYTHING is unprovable, as nothing is provable. Hence, you're right, but you're wrong.

Your point is not valid.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/18/2007 09:27 PM     
  Round versus Flat Earth  
 
It's funny that a theory put through the process of conjecture, observation, validation, and acceptance, should be noted as a failure of science. It was hypothesized that the earth was round, and as observations and experiments were done (both evidencing the new theory and disproving the old), this was accepted as a "law." Seems like the process worked. I'm sure the argument could be made that if scientists were to have just accepted it on its face it would have been "known" sooner, but for every "law" there are dozens of disproven theories that it would have been folly to have accepted. Hindsight is 20/20.

Science is very picky in what it accepts as "fact," and that has served us very well. Without this process, we'd all be running around like headless chickens, having no way to discern what ideas were valid and which were simply potentially valid some day. It will be a dark day (or age) when we have to be PC with science.

As for religious texts, of course many will say similar things, having descended from common oral and written traditions. Still, I'd like to hear how eastern and western religions are allegedly so similar...
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/18/2007 09:39 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com