Jump to content

Matthew Le God

Subscribed Users
  • Posts

    29,429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matthew Le God

  1. Go into the forum settings and add me to your ignore list so you never see my posts.
  2. Starting today vs Fulham after some recent sub appearances. Perhaps not the write-off who should be paid millions to end his contract and revive his career in non league football like some think! Will probably get injured today now I've said that! 😁
  3. They claim to have 15,000 people on a waiting list for a season ticket.
  4. It is a solution... not a troll. You can do the same.
  5. It is a solution not a troll and if it is not taken up, then that says more about them (you included) than me.
  6. @Holmes_and_Watson @Turkish @egg @badgerx16 @The Kraken @Weston Super Saint As you clearly do not like my posts... put me on your ignore list in the forum settings and you won't ever need to read them again. No excuse not to.
  7. 1) No one in this thread had posted that link. The link was relevant to a post in this thread that it was replying to. 2) Do you read every single new post in every thread before making your next post each time? 3) "We all knew about it" Even if your answer to 2 is yes, do you really believe everyone else does? 4) Had anyone else on this forum made that post, would you reply to it? I guess you will come up with a reason why only me, but 1 to 3 shows why you are wrong.
  8. He is contracted to a Championship team.
  9. They have announced their intention to increase capacity to 20k and then 23k.
  10. My rebuttal gave an explanation to your claim.
  11. Name one single example. If it is so common, it can't be hard. Accusations without substance. Do better!
  12. Accusations without substance. Do better!
  13. On what is that based? Give an example.
  14. I didn't say it was reliable. It demonstrably is not. I used it to show it is a Christians duty in their scripture to justify their belief when questioned.
  15. 1) An emergent property of matter in a universe with the right conditions. Not purely random, it depends on specific laws of nature and reliable chemistry. 2) I'm puzzled why you would think it should. You have conflated natural selection and abiogenesis. 3) Not true! Water has strong hydrogen bonds and a type of intermolecular force caused by the highly polar O–H bonds. These hydrogen bonds make water molecules stick together, requiring more energy to separate them into a gas. This raises water’s boiling point dramatically, keeping it liquid between 0°C and 100°C.
  16. That is irrelevant to it being a counter to your point I put in bold.
  17. 1 Peter 3:15 says: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
  18. Deeply flawed and packed full of fallacies! It creates a straw man by falsely portraying the origin of life as purely random, ignoring natural selection and chemical laws. It appeals to incredulity, suggesting that because the scenario seems unlikely, it must be false. A false dilemma is implied, presenting only two options—chance or design—while ignoring other natural explanations. It also misuses probability, treating a rare event as impossible without considering vast time and space scales, and it misapplies the anthropic principle by implying that Earth's suitability for life requires intentional fine-tuning, rather than acknowledging we observe it that way simply because we exist here.
  19. A method that can lead to polar opposites being believed not being a reliable path to truth is not merely opinion it is demonstrably logically evident.
  20. Missed it! You even quoted it! How did you miss something in a post you quoted? You then have the cheek to blame me for you not reading something you later quote! Are you not even reading the things you are quoting? I suppose that makes sense given you keep ignoring rebuttals.
  21. Here it is! A clear no and a reason for the no @egg You kept avoiding it!
  22. Bullshit... my post started with a no and explained why. The post reads... "No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith." But you kept ignoring it!
×
×
  • Create New...