DaDave beorn wrote:
> Are you saying no one can define what life is??? Or are you just
> saying we can't make an all inclusive definition that icudes
> everything we think it ought to include??
Well I guess that I am saying that no one can define what life is
BECAUSE we can't make an all inclusive definition.
The latest discussion on the replication and the "something
more"? on this newsgroup displays a nice example of two
parties that essentially both are right and yet cannot come to terms
on the central issue.
Life is a wonderful thing; as long as you hold the string (F.Sinatra