Search results

We'll smash 20. I reckon at least 25. But still, no - we won't trouble the top two.

Yes! I wasn't at the Athletics, but bought the programme at the volleyball and there are some CRACKING photos of her in there :thumbsup:

Home or away is irrelevant - we got a Guard of Honour away at Port Vale when we had won the league in 2002, I didn't see them complaining about it either....

:) It's not about tracing patterns, or is only in part. It's also about predicting future observations. If the explanation we have not only explains the past, but also allows us to predict details of other start - and these predictions are later verified by observation - then I really see...

I half agree with this. Abortion, and any other "God says..." moral issues are indeed a completely different debate. However the debate around the existence of a god/higher power is still as valid before you try to identify which god you're talking about, so bundling all the gods together in...

Correct. I don't disagree with that at all. For much that we can't understand, it's a case that we don't understand them yet. Other things we may never understand. I do believe though, that the onus is on the individual to provide evidence for a theory they propose (be that a supernatural...

See, we can all get along really :drink:

No. But, again, the fact that we cannot (yet) explain something is not evidence for a higher power or anything supernatural.

Indeed. Also see Russell's Teapot. (Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I'm not claiming it as proof of anything, just the explanation of a theory... before anyone complains :) )

Stepping outside the circle for a second - i.e. not debating the yes/no point - my personal thoughts on that: I have no problem with those who claim it is their opinion and nothing more. But when the religious try to force their beliefs on others I have a problem, and that knocks on. With kids...

The thing is, I don't need to "prove these opinions to be wrong". I'm pretty certain that if I claimed (or it was proven) that the universe itself was eternal, you'd still say an explanation was needed of why it exists or what/"who" created it. But it seems that this doesn't apply to your...

Ha - yes, you are right. Oops.

I'm sure I would completely agree if I had a family that I would need to pay for, so I completely understand! I don't mean to imply in anyway that you're "unlucky" to have kids, but in this one instance I consider myself 'lucky' that I can just pay for myself to enjoy the Olympics.

EDIT - Removed, apologies - I misread the post I was quoting.

Yup. Will be there for some Hockey Sunday evening, then Diving on Tuesday. Cannot wait. Missed out on the Orbit though - wasn't fussed at all when it was unveiled (and the tickets released) but now I quite fancy it...

Not that I "can't accept" it, but personally I do find it frustrating that so many people "believe" things that are in direct contradiction to solid, testable evidence. Here I'm not meaning you - I'm particularly talking about extreme examples such as 'New Earth Creationists' who insist that the...

I really don't think it is. A god (whichever one) is a (possible) explanation for the creation of the universe. He is not an explanation for the creation of everything, as "everything" must include that god. So the "first point of creation" is just raised one level higher, and not "answered"...

Exactly. For me, the same argument applies to parallel arguments in support of religion: "There has to be a God, something can't appear from nothing!" "Really, where did God come from then?" "Oh, er, um, er..." #opensanothercanofworms

With CMS, Barnes & Hoskins on the books he would surely be 4th choice, and I don't see the need to spend any money on someone that far down the list. I hope this doesn't mean that Hoskins is on the way out.

I'm not sure anybody has done that. People are laughing at others who believe that those other living organisms have travelled across the very vastness you talk about, just to piss about with our farmland.