Jimbo

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there! Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non). With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves. Should evolution be taught in school? Naturally! Its backed up by countless scientific evidence, its happening all the time and can be shown to be and its an important part of the biological sciences. If you want you can end that section of biology in school by saying, by the way the bible has another theory on how things came to be, check it out if you like! Do I have to spend time explaining the whole theory of evolution before we continue with this debate? You realise that many parts of the Bible are backed by historical documents? Jesus was around at the time the Bible claimed, and he was also crucified. These are documents which have nothing to do with religion by the way. In the same sense, evolution (the THEORY) has many facts too, and many things which are peoples opinion. Not really, i did it at school. None of the above stuff you mentioned (being from the new testament) has any baring on what i'd previously said. I said the bible has a theory on how humans came to be, and the part of the bible dealing with how humans came to be is genesis and you will do well to find any historical documents backing up that load of nonsense. There is no document in the world which proves where Man came from. Evolution doesn't even come close to explaining where Man even came from Yes, it does. With modern DNA analysis techniques you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The details might not be filled in but that's about it. Do you have a problem accepting humans have no special place in the world (in a biological sense), and are in fact just animals? Plenty of christians do, that's why they hate evolution so much I suspect. That makes a lot more sense than suggesting woman was produced from Adam's rib.

At the same time as posting leaders, Gemmil and Alex are absent, coincidence? I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Just trimmed the length of post a bit there! Could depend on what act on their beliefs means. For me they can do anything they like (within the law!) that doesn't impact upon those who don't share their views and i'd apply that to most things tbh. There aren't many examples i can think where i'd have a problem with a person of any religion praticing their beliefs tbh, my problem is with people forcing those views on others and influencing things that affect us all (believers and non). With me it has always been when anyhting gets censored, changed, or worst of all cancelled/banned on the basis of a religious argument. There is no other unproven thing (for want of a better word!) that could ever be used to ban tv programmes from broadcast, have films censored or plays picketted and cancelled etc. and thats the thing that annoys me. If i lived in the USA i'd explode But basically i'm the same as Renton and NJS, i think people are entitled to any faith they like but it shouldn't be taught in schools as a subject or have any hint of it being fact applied to it should it be mentioned, that is for kids to decide themselves. Should evolution be taught in school? Of course, there is clear scientific evidence of it.

I'm not bothered what people believe as long as it doesn't have a harmful effect on others, it just amuses me when people claim that contradictory and historically unreliable documents such as the bible as being unrefutable evidence. If people wish to have their beliefs and admit its all down to pure faith rather than having "evidence" then that is fine in my opinion.

So you've decided to hide these world changing events from the world as a whole ?

Double fuck

Despite the fact there is no evidence supporting the claims of the bible whatsoever ? I think there's logic involved. There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations. People consider the writings of the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle valid, and they were were written years before Jesus was born. I'm not going to believe in the Bible if it appeared completely illogical and just ridiculous. My beleif is mainly due to personal experiences. Walking on water Water into wine Earth created in six days Virgin birth Planet earth being only 10,000 years old Creation not evolution I see your point, its not in the slightest bit ilogical or ridiculous.

I'd forgotten how little Martins is

Despite the fact there is no evidence supporting the claims of the bible whatsoever ?

Jaidi off !

1-1 Taylor

Fuck all to do with me either !

I thought it was Campbell? Sorry, Radio Newcastle said it was Upson, should have known better tbh.

Fuck, 1-0 Brum, Upson.

I've just finished watching part 1, and was amused to find this regarding the vile Pastor Ted Haggard who featured in the show. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6117806.stm Top US pastor sacked amid sex row One of the US's most influential evangelical preachers has been dismissed by his church for what it called "sexually immoral conduct". The Reverend Ted Haggard, a vocal opponent of gay marriage, on Friday admitted buying drugs and having a massage from a gay masseur. But he denied using the methamphetamine or having sex with the man. The New Life Church said its inquiries and his public statements proved Pastor Haggard had committed immoral conduct. It has been decided that "the most positive and productive direction for our church is his dismissal and removal," the Colorado-based church said in a statement on its website. Mr Haggard, who on Thursday stepped down as the head of the 30m-strong National Association of Evangelicals, said he bought methamphetamine but "never used it". The issue is being played out against the backdrop of a vote in Colorado and seven other US states on Tuesday on whether to ban same-sex marriages. Mr Haggard, 50, has been a vocal opponent of the unions. Denver man Mike Jones, 49, told a radio show he had been paid to have sex with Mr Haggard nearly every month over the past three years. Mr Haggard said he had not had sex with Mr Jones but did receive a massage after being referred to him by a Denver hotel. Mr Haggard, who is also known as "Pastor Ted" and has five children, has close contacts with the White House.

Roeder set to move for Bent Jan 6 2007 By Alan Oliver, The Evening Chronicle Glenn Roeder will spend the weekend mulling over whether to ask his chairman Freddy Shepherd to enter the race for Charlton Athletic's England striker Darren Bent. The Newcastle United boss is an unashamed admirer of the powerful striker, but at £15m he was out of his price range in the summer. However, despite the silly money being talked about after Charlton boss Alan Pardew announced yesterday that he was prepared to sell his prize asset, I understand that in the end Bent could eventually be bought for around £12m - if not slightly less. This is probably more than Roeder will get from Shepherd in the January transfer window but at the same time the United chairman has always come up with the money for all his managers. Defenders are United's immediate priority in the January sales but, if Roeder and Shepherd could get in a couple on loan, then the money could be there for a striker. And how Roeder would love Bent to form a partnership with Oba Martins for the rest of this season when he returns from a knee ligament injury next month, and also with Michael Owen and Shola Ameobi when they return. Despite United's injury situation, Roeder is desperately trying to do things the right way and is not doing a bad job of it. He wants his signings to have their best days in front of them and Bent, who will be 23 next month, certainly comes into this category. At 5ft 11in he has the power and the physical presence and also the right attitude to be the ideal foil for Owen and Martins and, with Liverpool insisting Peter Crouch is not for sale, the Cambridge-born striker would be a great acquisition for United. As soon as Pardew announced that Charlton were going to cash in on Bent, the striker, with England caps against Uruguay and Greece, was immediately linked with fellow London clubs Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham. But Charlton would prefer to see Bent move out of London and it does not get much further than Tyneside. Spurs boss Martin Jol, who had a £10m bid for Bent turned down in the summer, has already said he is not interested and may instead turn his attention to West Ham's burly striker Marlon Harewood. And Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho is determined not to be held at ransom for any player he buys in the future and quickly backed off when quoted £18m by Charlton for Bent. Alan Curbishley, who signed Bent when he was manager of Charlton for a bargain £2.5m in the summer of 2005, has money to spend at Upton Park but West Ham is the last club the hierarchy at The Valley would like to see their man go to. My information is that Bent was always heading to Old Trafford but Sir Alex Ferguson has his hands full trying to persuade Bayern Munich to let him have England midfielder Owen Hargreaves for less than £20m. Like Dean Ashton at West Ham, Bent is a big pal of United defender Steven Taylor from their time together with the England Under-21 squad, and the two strikers have often said in the past just how much they loved the atmosphere at St James' Park. And The Chronicle can reveal that after Pardew said Bent could go, the striker told colleagues that Newcastle would be one of the clubs he would love to join.

Prunes or all bran should sort things out tbh.

Wrong forum?

There is a girl who works in our canteen at work who is as thick as they come, last week she went up to a black bloke and said: "What a lovely tan, have you been on holiday"?

From SKY Sports

Agreed, and far better on the right than on the left in my opinion.

Personally, I think he's all foreplay and no orgasm. And I cringe when I see him step up to take a freekick, they are usually woeful.