Matthew Le God

For something to be a 'maybe' also requires evidence that it is even remotely plausible.

Claim - global flood that killed everyone apart from one small group was an evil genocide Answer I got - they weren't human so it isn't evil to kill them all You honestly think that is a valid counter argument? 🙄

1) Your description of option 2 is not accurate. 2) What method have you used to determine plausibility? 3) Why have you ruled in a man in the sky being an option, but not a flying spaghetti monster or various other answers?

Scientific theories are based on demonstrable, testable, repeatable evidence. They are the highest point in science. Religious theories are a different usage of the word theory, a colloquial 'guess'.

- Beliefs impact actions - Actions impact people Irrational beliefs cause harm to society. That is why you should care. You should want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Science is the path to doing that, not religion which claims without evidence it already has the answer.

1) Such as? 2) What brought about the change?

You'd need evidence to support that before it was rational to believe it. Do you have some?

Let's take one of them... I claim the story of the global flood was a genocide by an evil God. The answer I got here was that the people God killed were not humans. That is nonsense with no evidence to support it. Also so what if they weren't human? Killing them all in a flood is still an evil act and still genocide. The arguments against my other points were just as bizarre.

Creation theory is not a theory in the scientific definition. A scientific theory is the explanation of something using demonstrable and repeatable evidence. Theory is also used as a word for a random guess. But that is different from what a scientific theory.

That is nonsensical. Existence is temporal, so nothing existed 'before time'.

Making up a reason using a God of the gaps fallacy does not get you to the truth either.

If they cherry pick from scripture.

Why is 'I don't know' an unacceptable answer to you both? It is more sensible to say you don't know than make up an answer. The way to find truth is to admit you don't know and then search for evidence. Not to make up an answer. 'God did it' isn't even a proper answer. It is answering one mystery with another mystery.

Needed to be signed by midday yesterday to be registered in time.

I didn't get answers that withstood any level of scrutiny. When questioned on them you resort to petty personal insults!

Snow gets games called off due to being dangerous for fans walking to games. It won't impact the pitch at Old Trafford with under soil heating.

Bournemouth

@trousers Why do you use screenshots of tweets rather than an inbed of the actual tweet? 🤔😇

We are getting close to a full squad of players who are currently limping!

We could start with Adam and Eve were set a task they could not win. If God is all knowing, then he knew they'd fail before they got the task. Thus it wasn't a fair test and unfair to punish them and humankind for failing. Or... we could talk about the global genocide flood? Or... the murder of first born Egyptian babies? Or... the instructions to keep slaves? Etc etc

It was an opportunity to give Valery and Vokins final chances to impress and they failed.

How about d) Without Vokins and Valery who aren't good enough and opening the pathway up for someone else who might be. Perhaps Ramsey is better than Valery. Perhaps Ferry is better than Vokins. Perhaps this all opens up the pathway more for Jankewitz to get more gametime.

Loan fees for senior PL players tend to be a few million for a half season. That is how for example we got £5m for Cedric including wages.