Tico

Using his theory of evolution everything started from a single life form I wanted to know how that form survived. Another living being must have been there at the same time (stupid). It must have been hermaphrodite (stupid). It must have been a cannibal (stupid). With no other life around I can't see any other logical explanation of how it could have survived or reproduced.

Ironically, not a single person had a view on if this initial life form could have been airbourne instead of waterbourne.

Are these thoughts really that ridiculous even if they can't be proved one way or the other?

Firstly, all evolutionary theories rely in something having been created to start evolution. If we had all come from one cell that evolved into everything, there would still only be one form of life. That form of life wouldn't need to change because the environment couldn't change. There would be no genes because they wouldn't be needed, the life forms would be hermaphrodite cannibals.

Going by certain principles of evolution, this has to happen. When do you think this might happen?

To criticise religious terms when an anagram of 'atheist' is "eat s*it".

Of God existing when they can read the Bible, read the census forms the Romans conducted that are in the Vatican library, or rely on theories?

Science accepts that there must have been a creator for the big bang to have even become a theory. Science also accepts that life forms must have been created for us to be here now.

History says that nobody ever saw the big bang happen. Biology says that there is no evidence of DNA mutating to produce evolution in humans and nobody has ever witnessed the birth of a new species.

So all the science points at a creator and anything else is theory. The science might or might not be strong but it is proof, theory is not proof.

This isn't an argument involving the Bible, so please don't quote it when replying.

A.Emily Bronte (author of Wuthering Heights) or

B. Emily the brontosaurus

God gave us light or do we have 24 hours of darkness that only religious people don't notice?

She had a civil ceremony with another woman and is showing her status. Her fellow BBC presenter Fiona Bruce was told to remove her crucifix because it 'offended' Muslims. I don't want opinions about homosexuality here, just to know why they complain against one and not the other when they condemn both.

If anyone making sectarian comments gets arrested, according to the new bill?

I get the impression a lot of people aren't sure what is or isn't a sectarian comment.

I've yet to find anyone else who does and talk to loads of different people about this. I'm sure they must be around somewhere.

Now that Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Sunderland and Hartlepool are out of the FA Cup isn't it embarrassing that the only team from the north east of England left in a main cup competition this year is Berwick Rangers? They're playing Celtic in the SFA Cup this afternoon. What do think of their chances of completing a clean sweep of losers?

Frank plays for Chelsea, who have conceded the fewest goals in the Premier League. His home town club, Romford FC, have conceded only 7 league goals all season in the Ryman's League. Not bad for a bunch of amateurs but this is the lowest amount in the whole of England. Proof that money isn't everything. What do you think?

In the FA Cup semi finals of 1975 there were two London teams and of the four, one came from outside the top division. Three of those teams were West Ham, Birmingham and Ipswich. The same teams are now in the League Cup semi finals.

Out of interest, West Ham beat their London rivals (Fulham) in the final.

He's just been sacked by Chicago FC

England are 6th best team in the world! Give me a break.

Results:1.Spain- 2.Holland -3.Germany- 4.Brazil- 5.Argentina

33.Republic of Ireland- 45.Northern Ireland- 47.SCOTLAND- 84.Wales

For Irish fans France are 27th

Former Celtic player from a few years ago has had a heart attack on the pitch at the age of 23.

The British man who has legally owned the Titanic since 1972 has compared the recent expedition to the famous wreck with a circus and is planning to hold exhibitions throughout Britain displaying his ownership papers, affidavits, press releases, letters, other legal papers, salvage rights and thousands of press cuttings alongside varying other models and other memorabilia to show the world the truth about what has happened since the wreck was first discovered and recorded in 1953.

Among the newspaper cuttings are the first story published about finding Titanic in 1977/78 (along with the original photos and official reports about exactly what happened and the location), a copy of The Observer printed on 31st August (dated 1st September) 1985 telling about Dr. Ballard's 'discovery' more than seven hours before he even made the discovery, complete with the location he registered. There are also the papers from the auction house where the owner was able to legally auction the steering mechanism and press cuttings from the newspapers the following day. A letter from the American group taking part in this recent expedition also clearly accepts that Titanic is British owned.

All of the above facts are legally binding and preceed any American claims, putting into serious question any rulings made by American courts and mostly because the registration of Titanic remained in Britain. The fact the wreck lies in international waters means it is also outside the jurisdiction of American courts.

With all this proof being presented in its original form will you want to see it with your own eyes?

I'm not a scientist but Steven Hawking's latest revelation doesn't add up.

If laws of physics state that there must be a positive for negative and vice versa, the big bang theory must surely be in question. There is no theory on a great implosion or a negative universe which would be needed to balance the argument (Darwin's theory of evolution would surely also only be balanced by devolution).

His calculations have gone from the Roman system where positive goes straight into negative and completely ignores zero. Zero is a total void where nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed. Zero is also proven to exist between positive and negative, so what he has said can only be wrong. Every scientist and mathematician has to acknowledge this.

Has he just made a basic error?

Atheists don't accept the existence of God because they can't see him but know an invisible force powers their equipment in the form of electricity. The only difference is that they can see the source of where the electricity comes from. We all see life all the time but don't always see the source but it must be there or nothing would be able to move at all.

Atheists, give me theological (not scientific) proof that electricity exists and I'll accept your argument.