Re: Stupid Design.
- From: "Ale" <_cutbetweenunderscores_theopps75@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:30:57 +0100
anybody has the new definition they want of science?
Should be interesting (read funny) to read it...
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message
news:5hd3n1h1avpj7c7835fh6nhv1erpfrc3qm@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html
>
>
> Calling something, which exists, for the sake of it's mere existence,
> while NOBODY would miss it, would it be non-existant,
>
> "INTELLIGENT"
>
> is......what?
>
> w.
> --
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> IN NONE WE TRUST.
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stupid Design.
- From: Gregory L. Hansen
- Re: Stupid Design.
- From: Helmut Wabnig
- Re: Stupid Design.
- Prev by Date: Re: What will happen?
- Next by Date: Re: E**2=m**2+p**2?
- Previous by thread: Re: the problem of storing lines/string/wire/hose so they do not knot
- Next by thread: Re: Stupid Design.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|