I'm going to make this very easy to understand.
Vortexmagus asked a mostly impartial question, to which you responded with a VERY contentious statement of fact. All I want is for you to back that statement up with scientific information, then I would be more than happy refute the facts upon which you base your contention with other, contrary facts. Then people could compare the evidence we had brought to the fore and make up their own minds.
Until you offer positive evidence for you position, however, I have nothing but moronic Crichton references to confront, which is a complete waste of time, although I could. I read "State of Fear," and it wasn't even that tightly put together for FICTION. The science in the book is laughably bad. You bringing it up here is like me citing Dan Brown to prove Jesus had a baby. Yeah, the book is loosely based on historical fact, but it's still a work of FICTION.
You made the first bold statement, so you need to put your nuts on the proverbial block first. Then I would be happy to show that you're wrong.