egg

MLG, for the last time, a theory does not have to be a scientific theory to be a theory. Some people believe in creation. It's not scientific. It's a theory. You don't agree with it, I don't, and I think the only point you're making is that as the theory ain't scientific and you don't agree with it that others can't hold that theory. You're one arrogant man. I've no interest in engaging any more with you. Have a good evening.

That was some goal. I don't think even he knew that he had that in his locker.

I understand the idea MLG. It's you that believes only a scientific theory is a theory. Broaden your horizons.

Tell me about my Aunt Mary. She's not religious, but she believes that God (not an all loving God, just what she calls God) created the heaven and earth. According to you, that belief impacts on her actions on a day to day basis. How on a daily basis is her belief "harmful" to others. Say she went shopping then had to phone the bank, how does her believing that God created heaven and earth harm the people she encountered that day. I'm genuinely intrigued now cos I thought Aunt Mary was alright but maybe I should be a bit scared of her.

Yeah, in your would there's the theory that you believe in. I know that. I repeat, nobody is saying that the creation theory is scientific, but it's still a theory. I get the distinct impression that as you don't subscribe to that theory that you can't accept that it is a wildly held theory that others can subscribe to. You're not God's only child Matthew.

Err, read what was being discussed mate. The point was on the creation theory as opposed to big bang. That topic is pointless enough, I ain't expanding the discussion.

So I got drivel. Predictable. Let's assume my Aunt Mary likes the idea that God created heaven and earth etc, how could that belief actually harm anyone and/or impact her daily actions? Just give one hypothetical. Just one.

My second sentence is a typo because I gave your nonsense the lack of attention it deserved. I meant to say, as well you know, A scientific theory is a scientific theory, but a theory can be non scientific.

Again, bollox. A scientific theory is a scientific theory, but a theory can be non scientific. Have a little look at the correct definition of theory. Google is your friend.

Bollox. If someone believes that God created the heaven and the earth etc, explain how that belief alone could possibly "impact actions" and that those "actions impact people". Give an actual proper answer, not your usual drivel and spin.

MLG, the last time you wanted to discuss the bible I wasn't interested, and I'm not now. I don't read the bible. Have the discussion with someone who's interested mate.

I'm not sure where this has come from. There are competing theories about the creation of earth. They're not theories I'm discussing - I believe in the scientific big bang for what it's worth, although the source of what went bang needs explaining. If other people subscribe to the alternative non scientific creation theory, good luck to them.

I don't think that there's much dispute about that. Valery would have done abetter job at RB against Villa than Djenepo but Ralph made his feelings perfectly clear. They haven't got a future here under Ralph.

Indeed. He also said, and I paraphrase, that coincidences are calling cards from God. One of the greatest ever scientific minds with a belief in God.

What difference does it make to you or anyone else if someone believes in the creation theory? You say its no skin off your nose, but you've stepped into the thread and made a point quite forcefully which suggests it does matter to you.

That doesn't alter that the fact that some people believe it's option 2 and are entitled to that opinion. Tim's post also highlights how pointless any "discussion" on the point is. There's 2 options. Take your pick and disagree with someone else's opinion if you really must. If someone believes in the creation theory (entirely different of course to a belief in a god of course) rather than logical science, it makes no difference to anyone else. Indeed, it staggers me that anyone would be interested in whether someone else believes science or creation, God or no God, religion or no religion. Live and let live.

Translation "people with more understanding than me told me what I didn't want to hear".

Your interpretation of the tales of one holy book has been done to death mate. This isn't a bible study thread. If you want a theological discussion, perhaps broaden your horizons.

I get your sentiment, but I'm not sure many people are saying that Valery is decent. Perhaps Valery. And his agent.

Curveball, but I'd be happy with that. Him as a 10 gives us options, an alternative to what we have obviously, but also possibly shifting Armstrong to a 6, meaning JWP or Diallo for FB cover.

Yep, but only til next summer on sensible wages. If he wants longer and/or high wages, then no.

Slinger

Ha!! That's better than official confirmation.

Where's this Lookman talk come from? That seems very unlikely, but would be a great bit if business.

Yep, pretty much agree with that. Stephens at LB, staying back, gives scope for KWP to play high and a 10 on the left to get forward and mostly stay there. At the end of the day, we're skint so if we get nobody in we'll have to make do. Ferry looks a player though, and you be right that after Vokins has shown that he's not quite at the level that Ferry now his has chance as the next young LB.