Tim wrote:
"But agreeing with Revlgking this discussion is going off-topic."
revlgking wouldn't know "on-topic" if he fell off a ladder onto it.
The master of contrivance has not once even made even the slightest effort with respect to science. When he makes a contribution to the forum I will consider his opinion accordingly. And in this case, as TNZ says ... our comments are on-topic.
If one ignores the contrivance of substituting "Ø" or "o" which I would presume either a deity or a sentient human could manage to see through the only definition of the word, of any value to a discussion is the one from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.
Lets have a modicum of integrity here. The concept of a monotheistic deity identified as "god" has been around for thousands of years. Anyone in 2007 who wishes to stand up and claim that everyone else in all of history misunderstood and wishes to redefine the term is going into the dustbin of history just like so many thousands before them: An empty hat.
