NJS

The problem is, as Jimbo was stating and as I keep pointing out, the whole basis of christianity is that book. I think the book in question is easy to poke large holes in with pretty simple questions which always seem to end with believers saying "I've no clue about these stories" or "they are all metaphorical apart from the ones I like" or "nobody takes it literally". If you want to follow the example of Buddhism and base your beliefs on the teachings of someone who spoke good sense without invoking the divine then fine. If you want to extend that to teaching kids lies as scientific facts then I think I have a right to object.

Don't quote the great man at him - you'll only confuse him

I'm not sure whether its worse if she lied through her teeth for years or that as she said she took something her coach gave her which he told he was okay. A lot of other "cheats" have used the same excuse which if true says a lot about either how bright they are or how dodgy the relationship with their coach is where a "take this" is trusted without question.

There's no "physical evidence whatsoever" because it's not right in front of your eyes to see - if you didn't find it so absurd, would you be forced to accept the evidence? Plenty of writings support the Bible, from both Christian and non-Christian sources. This includes eye-witness testimony from the Gospels. 24,000 manuscripts support the New Testament, and showing it hasn't been edited as is a common belief. Compare this to less than 20 for the writings of Plato et al. There are plenty of paintings and inscriptions. Archaelogical remains, such as the empty tomb have thrown up a lot of problems - even the most sceptical scholars in those days didn't deny Jesus' existence and that he died. Then we have inferential evidence, such as the transformed disciples, and how quite quickly Jesus made a pretty big religion to be fair. Now, are they not the sort of methods people uncover any historical events? Paintings and inscriptions from hundreds of years later? A convenient cave which proves it all? Manuscripts written later which support a new movement? The so called "eye witness" gospels were written at the very earliest 60 years after the supposed events. Its also indisputable that the four gospels were the work of an editorial committee which added and left bits out for political reasons. I've said before I think the bloke did exist - the existence of the religion is evidence for that but that of course says nothing about what he is supposed to have said and done which is taken as "gospel" - supernatural events aside. You seem to rise at Jimbo's use of "fairy tales" - can I ask what you think of the following?: The human race being descended from 2 people wished into existence. A world created in 6 days. A worldwide flood. A man being swallowed by a giant fish and living. 10 plagues being visited on a country. A woman being turned into a pillar of salt. All of the "miracles" of christ including the resurrection. The graveyards of Jerusalem opening up and the dead walking on JC's death. If these stories were intended to be metaphorical to teach morality (twisted in most cases) then the use of phrase "fairy tales" isn't that far off. If they were intended to be taken as fact (which I believe) then I think its fair to poke the obvious holes in them and condemn the book in that context. BTW that last one about the "zombies" provides an illustration about the way theists minds work. In Hitchens book he recounts how he asked someone whether they believed specifically in that event. The reply was that "Historically" he could not believe it but as a Christian he did believe it - try and tell me thats the work of a rational mind.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever for anything mentioned in the entire bible. The history is questionable in the extreme, the science is laughable, the morality in both the old and new testament is contemptible. Yes I have read about who wrote the bible, when, how and why. The more you do so, the more you recognise that basing a life on it as a whole and not using your inherent morality to cherry pick it would lead to people being irrational, jealous, bigoted, arrogant and murderous - oh hang on.... TI I don't agree that parents, especially in the US, are simply passing on their own beliefs to their kids. A lot of them realise that YEC is a lie but their political agenda of being anti-science requires them to propagate the lies. This is a lot more unforgivable than just believing in a supernatural Sky daddy in my view.

There is no difference between "believing" the earth is 6000 years old and stating that 2+2 = 5. Faith has nothing to do with it. You and I can debate whether an unproveable being exists but when it comes to "facts" that are indisputable I think "fuck-witted moron" covers it. I despise the concept of lying to children. (not you btw - I realise you're semi-rational)

You can't teach Biology without evolution - unless you reduce it to naming things - even then classification without relationships from common descent is senseless. Belief in a young earth also complete negates geology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.

tbf - I wouldn't say that to a kid - its not their fault they are brainwashed - I'd have no problem with the parents though.

Good stuff, I always find this is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people to listen to reason. It's a start - I would have no problem on expanding on the why. The teaching guidelines actually mention a response based on what science is and how it works and why creationism isn't science - all thats wrong is it stops there and doesn't say "now lets apply science and reason to your God". Cue "But you can't apply science to God" - Why not? - we do to Zeus and the rest - dead civilisation = dead god.

Anybody who believes the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago is a fuck-witted moron who should be informed of their fuck-wittedness in no uncertain terms. "But you must my respect beliefs" - well I believe you're a fuck-witted moron - easy.

Over the last couple of years nearly all of the colds I've had have been very painful in the sinus area between my eyes. Went to see a specialist today and he reckons I have whats known as nasal polyps - growths on the mucus membranes which constrict the airflows and cause this type of problem. He gave me a nasal spay and I have to go for a scan with the prospect of possible surgery which funnily enough my sister had to have about 5 years ago (hers was more serious) so it may be genetic. Anyone any experience of this? I know its not as potentially amusing as Greg's nads but I would still like to know.

Sleeveless bodywarmers/jackets. Man bags.

A more preferable approach than the previous regimes - a couple of reserve games and a bit on the bench. Its a pisser as a whole but better this than further breakdowns.

The thing with Geremi is that I thought after losing Parker it would mean the end of someone whose idea of a pass is to hit the ball in the general direction of a random shirt. Geremi has proved me wrong on that. Substitute "Geordie" for "White" and that's how I've described Taylor since day one. Faye is better.

The way I see this season is that given a chance to gel, we will see a lot more solid defence (especially with Faye/Cacapa instead of Taylor) but until the midfield can be enhanced in January I think we'll rarely "turn it on" away from home and against sides with a bit of flair like Man City will struggle. I think we'll do well at home. I hope Barton does make as much a difference as people hope but I feel we need more than just him.

All we can ask is that medical decisions are based on "Newcastle player" rather than "England Player". I'm not convinced thats been the case up to now.

Found out this morning that the government guarantee is illegal under EU law but its been okayed for a "short period" which is undefined. Expect the Germans to say something soon.

He should have been sacked for saying that Elliot was correctly sent off against Chelsea the other year for the Wright-Phillips dive. Then again he was a typical Tottenham cheat as a player. As for how he got his job I'm not frightened to say it - a BBC dream - a well-spoken black ex-player. As for N'Zogbia I said it when Dyer left - he can replace and better him given the chance.

I seriously doubt he'll be out for over two months. If they try the old rest/minor strain/rest/oh shit surgery route timed for England games then I wouldn't be surprised. I really do like the bloke and hope he plays for us for a few years yet but anyone who doesn't think theres a question over who he puts first is fucking mental.

It will be interesting to see if the government can get away with this guarantee thing in EU law. The bank I work for is one of about 20 German federal state banks that lost one point of their credit ratings a couple of years ago after the EU forced them to stop acting as guarantors for the banks because of competition laws.

I share the sentiments that I would have jumped in but I think the police side to the story makes sense as well - one of them went on his bike to direct the other emergency services down the lane to the lake and the other remained there to pinpoint the location. This may be bullshit but I can see the sense in it if its true. I also think a 3 or 4 ft deep lake is a different proposition to a 6 feet deep lake which I think this was in places. In the former you could search pretty effectively just by wading but not in the latter which needs more effort. As I said I think I would have tried - but at the same time the mother's "he would have been alive if they had done" is probably over-hopeful as well.

I'd add Dabizas.

How can anyone get criticism of Shephersd out of this and excuse Luque is beyond me. If a player doesn't know us and is a bit reluctant then there is nothing wrong with giving him more money to encourage him to sign. All that article proves to me is that I was far too generous to the lazy sack of shit.

They''l try rest because of England - he'll not play for us and then strain it requiring an op - total time out for us 8-9 weeks. Or have the op now - miss England, time out for us - 3 or 4 weeks. Mmmm... I wonder.

Can't really put any blame on Harper tbh Disagree - the first two jobs of a keeper are to stay on their feet (see Alonso) and to be in the right position for anything that may happen - he was off the middle of the goal for no reason whatsoever - it was a good strike but I blame him - nowt against him just think He's not good enough.