Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 04 May 1995 02:47:31 GMT


In article <>, China (hilary@gladstone.uoregon.edu) writes:
>> Whooooooooosh! (In case you haven't caught on, you missed it.
>> Apparenly went right over your head).
>>
>>
>> For the intellectually impaired, the implication was that god was a
>> human invention. Do you get it now?

Really? I'd never have guessed . . .

>>
>I don't think anyone missed it. Our friend, once removed, was
>deliberatly misunderstanding -- I think. Its exactly what I would have
>said, and I understood.
>
>It was a cute answer, but a little too easy. Neither God nor nature are
>that simple.
>

There is no argument that God or nature are "that simple". All the
grade-school ning-nongs taking this here thread so seriously are the
simpletons, I do submit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270