Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically 
> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no evidence 
> this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that *no* one, 
> neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this argument as an "in" 
> for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what is going on.

I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message