steaknchips

Does that sound like the kind of thing a rational human being would say? That he would turn away from evidence in favour of scripture? Surely if scripture were correct there'd be no need to turn away from evidence, as it would support the scripture.

But the religious types can choose which bits of scripture to believe to suit their current argument. If you believe in a magic sky fairy, it is acceptable to believe that the bible is the literal word of their god and also ignore the bit where it states that the world was created in six days.

Normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance when they try to hold conflicting opinions and realise that both cannot be true. Rational people choose the argument supported by evidence.

The world created in 6 days is not ignored.

The word for day in Hebrew is yom..Now yom can mean any of the following;- light, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, year.

The word yom is translated into day, season, time, ever, evermore, always, ago, age, years, in the bible..Because the Hebrew language dosnt contain as many words as the English language, so the word yom has been intrepreted to its closest meaning by the passage in the scripture.

A day, year, period of light, period of darkness etc during time of creation may not be a period of 24 hours as we see it today. He created light and called it day(this wasnt the Sun as it wasnt created yet), He created Darkness and called it night.

In revelation 23 it tells us that one day we will not need the Sun or moon as the glory of God will illuminate.

Also in 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Steakandcheese and julie - you have both repeatedly displayed a total misunderstanding of evolution, the relevant evidence, and science in general. This should come as no surprise. Unfortunately creationist material is written exclusively by scientifically uneducated religious fundamentalists who adhere to dogma rather than rational thought or logic.

So, how about we take this thread in a different direction? In the spirit of education and enlightenment, how about you post the things that you don't understand and the scientists amongst us can try and help you out.

In order for this to work, there must be nothing other than clear, concise communication.

Some conditions for both sides:

1. No mockery at any point (I know I have been guilty of this)

2. No copy and pasting from websites

3. Links to relevant evidence are ok

4. Posts should be concise, no more than a couple of paragraphs. Long, drawn out posts are boring and hard to read

5. It's ok to not know something, or to not understand something, it doesn't automatically make you wrong.

I won't pretend to understand everything about evolution, but you must understand that just because I may not know something, it doesn't mean it is not known.

For the record, I hold a bachelors degree in chemistry and am currently training to be a doctor, so I have a decent grasp of science.

Deal?

edit: Obviously also include any objections you have to evolutionary theory and I'll try and explain things.

Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side.

http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Does scientists' interpretation represent a case of following preconceived notions, while neglecting other more logical explanations that are actually supported by independent empirical evidence?

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no random evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms.

Ads by Google

There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.

Then, of course, there are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born diseased or deformed. They either die out or pass on their aberrations to offspring. Again, in the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species.

The question now is, given the realities of biological aberrations and limited metamorphosis, have scientist considered these phenomena as possible explanations for Tiktaalik?

Have scientists considered perhaps even that there could have been a species that had some of the characteristics of both aquatic and dry-land creatures, and didn't necessarily evolve from or to any other creature?

The discovery of Tiktaalik has been widely reported on network television, in newspapers, in magazines, and on the internet, all claiming it to be proof of evolution. I have thus far not seen a single account of an evolutionist even listing other possibilities, let alone describe by what rationale or evidence explanations other than evolution were eliminated.

We have ample independent, modern-day evidence of several explanations for Tiktaalik. Yet, scientists decided on the one explanation for which there is no independent proof, evolution, and then have the temerity to claim that this PROVES evolution.

Throwing out an explanation and saying, go ahead disprove it, is easy. Coming up with several explanations and disproving them yourself one by one until you're left with the one you claim to believe, that's another story. What scientists have done is employed "used car salesmanship" to sell us "science;" they've told us "it's a great car," but neglected to tell us about the holes, cracks and leaks. Tiktaalik is proof of only one thing: the public can be subjected to some really bad science.

Perhaps these scientists should be working for General Motors -- a little slick salesmanship could do wonders for the auto industry.

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/tiktaalik-scientists-insult-to-the-publics-intelligence-734131.html#ixzz1cpmDtZC1

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Brum,

The same reasons I dont believe in evolution..The bible is the only thing that makes sense.

Good answer...It explains your theory in great detail. lol

Darwin expected, or rather hoped, that with technology a new means of finding fossils would arise that would fix this problem. Guess what? A century and a half later, evolutionists have only a small handful of very controversial, supposed missing links.

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

Most 'non-believers' I know have come that conclusion after being exposed to various religions and deciding that evidence of evolution and other scientific theories do a better job of explaining the world and how we got here than religion.

Also if you honesty think that there are legitimate explanations as to how we came about then i suggest you start reading non religious websites or books.

Yes there are explanations but they contain flaws. You think you can just read about a miracle in the bible, then just dismiss it because to you, it seems unlikely to happen, its something you cant get your head around..It has no explanation other than a using God as an excuse..Yet you get the same miracles appearing when you go down the evolution road too, it is not without its flaws...When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch..

Look at the information available in DNA..A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive..

No mutation that increases in genetic information have ever been found. To get from an amoeba to man would require a "massive" net increase in information. We only have evidence of preprogrammed variation and multiple copies of existing information..

Physics tells us that all systems can have a tendency to disorder but only at a an expense of greater disorder lost elsewhere...Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things or the information which builds them. Undirected energy would just speed up destruction.Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law in physics.

Darwin said that one day we would find fossils that show the missing links in the transitional changes you would see as things evolve. As of yet we havnt found any..They all the same life form, non have been found going from one life form to another....Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—Yet non believers believe that we came from raw material. Even evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

I dont know what you mean Brum in your question..

Hinduism, Islam, etc

Do I believe in certain teachings and way of life used in Hinduism? Yes

Do I believe Mohammed existed? Yes.

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

Even looking at when the bible was written, certain events, timelines, people and places have been investigated and found to have substance..The Ark dimensions have even been looked at by engineers and they have said its a posibily...Yet when it was written, how did they know those measurements would stand the test of time?(along with the other occurances, timelines, places, people and events?) Pretty clever stuff for a bunch of people travelling around on a few donkey's.. :?

Chindie,

I wouldnt just write it off like many do before doing research on both sides of the fence 1st.

What are you talking about?

The only "side" to research is the history of the universe, earth and its inhabitants (in other words life in all forms).

Absolutely NO evidence suggests that every human being is a direct ancestor of a boat builder and his children living in the middle east a few thousand years ago. Absolutely no data indicates that all life on earth save the lucky passangers of a giant boat was ever wiped out by a massive flood. No data indicates that such a giant boat was ever built. Guessing that it could theoretically be the case does not count as evidence. The bible (and I have actually read most of it!) does not count as evidence. There is no evidence to support the stories of miracles in the bible! There is no evidence to support the existance of a god!

There is, its just you somehow fail to yourself to believe it. Ive posted a piece I found earlier in this topic found here http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence that shows evidence. Yet you have yet to show me evidence of the stories in the Bible being false..Evidence of a miricle is in the very writtings in the Bible..Do you believe the bible, just not miracles? Or do you plainly disregard all the substance in the bible altogether? If so why?

In fact, it would be impossible to do so since science can only study physical phenomena. Immaterial substances are outside of the scope of science. Animals can be explained purely in material terms, whereas humans cannot since they possess minds, not merely brains that receive.

This just shows how little research you have done.

Every thought you have is the result of a physical action , i.e. chemical reactions in your physical brain .

Your mind and your body are not two different entities . One is in charge of the other and it certainly isn't the mind.

Neuroscience.....I suggest you "research" it . It also puts to bed the silly notion that humans are in control of ourselves and that we have free will.

Everything you do and think about is dictated by your physical brain .

There is no metaphysical "you" who controls your brain .

f all things are reducible to matter and all things must work under the boundaries of natural laws, then we are nothing more than the product of neural-chemical reactions that occur in the physical brain. This would negate the idea of real freedom and necessitate that our beliefs, thoughts, "free will," etc., are nothing more than the product of physical laws. Materialists counter by saying that the human free will and consciousness are emerging properties of supercomplex structures such as the brain. But, this is only a theory that must necessarily be assumed if one holds to materialism.

Furthermore, materialism itself is a concept. But how do concepts have any actual existence in a material world? The concept itself is not made up of physical parts or components. Therefore, since materialism says all things that exist do so in the physical realm, the fact that concepts exist refutes that idea.

If the human mind is produced from arrangements of complexity of matter, then is it not logical to conclude that greater complexities of matter could also produce something you would call God that would exceed physical limitations? It would certainly seem so.

Pretty much everyone thats replied to you here to, lets say 'critique' the nonsense Google told you has researched both sides of the fence, and the side you purport to stand on don't have any of them there answers, or at least not ones that stand up to scrutiny that children could put forward. Certainly Brumerican, mjmooney, Michelson, GarethRDR, tonyh29 and myself have done.

As I said... pack it in.

Chindie there are answers to all your questions on the web link I posted...They are not new questions and have all been asked and answered before.. :winkold:

No Gareth...Why would God have a plan? You talking an eternal being creator of matter, space and time. If he has a plan, he created it.

I do have a question for anyone who believes in religion and the bible etc, but it's slightly off topic but i'll ask anyway....

As a vegetarian, i've always believed that we as humans are no better then any other animal, it is only intelligence and being able to think past our own deaths that separate us. So to anyone who believes in religion, do you believe that when you go to McDonalds and eat a burger, the cow that got killed has also gone to it's own cow heaven? Will it also be judged for the life it's had? .... Also, when you walk down the road and accidentally stamp on a snail, do you pray for it and hope that that goes to snail-heaven too? Or is it that we as humans are just "special" and it's only us who get's judged and put in either heaven or hell?

Since the Bible has nothing to say about dogs and cats going to heaven, a philosophical approach will be necessary to answer this question. While it is clear in Scripture that humans are a unity of material and immaterial parts (2 Cor. 5:8), no such thing is said about animals. We must work from what we know of humans and animals through experience. The major factor that separates humans and animals is their ability to reason. Both have the same senses and both have awareness of their surroundings, but only humans think rationally, using logic. Humans can analyze data; animals can only perceive. Animals can be conditioned; humans can be taught ideas.

Why is this important? It illustrates the difference between the merely physical phenomenon of perception and the immateriality of reasoning. No scientist has been able to discover any link between the physical matter of the brain and immaterial thought. In fact, it would be impossible to do so since science can only study physical phenomena. Immaterial substances are outside of the scope of science. Animals can be explained purely in material terms, whereas humans cannot since they possess minds, not merely brains that receive.

If, then, humans are found to have immaterial minds, then a part of them exists apart from the body and may be capable of surviving death. On the other hand, if an animal dies there is nothing left of it to survive. Once life has left the matter of the animal’s body, it ceases to be a living thing altogether, and becomes merely a carcass. So, it would seem that, barring any other evidence suggesting that there is an immaterial aspect to animals, they do not go to heaven (that is, the heaven which exists now).

Having established all of this, there is good reason to believe that there will be animals in the new earth (Is. 65:17,25), which will be the eternal home of those who are saved (Rev. 21:1, 22:5). This will be a very physical place lived in by physical people with resurrected bodies, enjoying the material pleasures of the new earth (Rev. 20:4, 1 Cor. 15:20-22, Is. 65:21-22). If no form (mind or soul) remains which may be reunited to matter (a body), then animals which formerly died won’t be resurrected either. If my reasoning thus far is correct, then only new animals will be made by God. Ultimately, everything that you love about your dog or cat is found in an infinitely more perfect form in God Himself, and He will be all you need and all you ever desired. If you are without any loved one (including animals) in the new heavens and earth, you will not feel any lack, because God Himself will fill every desire of your heart perfectly as the source of all good things you seek.

http://carm.org/animals-heaven

Chindie,

I wouldnt just write it off like many do before doing research on both sides of the fence 1st.

Brumerican, all your questions can be answered.

ques.....How did the human species evolve into the various races we see today in 6-10,000 years ?

answ......The different races came from the descendants of Noah. It does not take long for genetic traits to become dominant based upon geographical location. Take, for example, people who would live in Africa where the sun is very direct and there's not as much cloud cover. People with darker skin would survive better because they would not be sunburned and develop skin cancer the way lighter skinned people would.

On the other hand, people in the northern regions, where the sunlight is less direct, would need more vitamin D which is produced by the sunlight hitting the skin. Vitamin D prevents rickets, which is the softening of bones which can lead to fractures and breaks. But people with darker skin in more northern, colder climates would not be able to produce as much vitamin D, and so they would not do as well as people with lighter skin.

The descendents of Noah had all the genetic material necessary to produce the various so-called races as they moved out across the land and went to different locations. Given enough time, those genetic traits that manifested and aided in survivability became dominant, and those genetic traits that manifested but did not help survivability were eventually wiped out.

Please note that CARM does not affirm the theory of evolution which states that people evolved from lower life forms. But God, in his great wisdom, provided enough genetic information in our genes to aid us in adapting to various needs

ques....how can the Abrahamic God be a standard for morality, when he willingly murdered innocent babies via drowning ?

answ....In Genesis 6, God’s judgment upon the world at large is found in these words: “The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them”" (Gen. 6:7). While the universal flood certainly seems extreme on the surface, there are a number of factors that should be kept in mind.

First, the Bible makes it clear that violence and evil had grown to be extremely pervasive so that it literally touched everything and everyone that existed at that time. Genesis 6:5 states: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” The author of the Pentateuch indicates that some of the sin was sexual in nature (cf. Gen. 6:1-2), and that the evil permeated and filled the earth. This erases the argument that God drowned ‘innocent’ people in the flood that He brought.

Next, during the construction of the ark, which lasted at least 100 years, Noah is described as a ‘preacher of righteousness’ (cf. 2 Pet. 2:5) to the people around him. This means the people had 100 or so years to listen to the message of Noah and repent of the sin that was bringing the flood waters upon them. So in the end, we find God using His messenger to proclaim the truth of repentance and judgment before a fully corrupt culture that refused to be moved even after 100 years of being exposed to it. And we find God’s mercy being displayed on the one family who followed and obeyed what God had commanded.

Other answers can be found on this site; http://carm.org/

WHAT is it that possesses otherwise perfectly intelligent people (the fine and estimable Julie being a prime example), when involved with religion to completely take leave of their senses in such a way?

It truly intrigues and bewilders me.

There are in fact people that have studied Theology and evolution in great detail, yet still come out saying the bible makes more sense.

Far more intelligent people than you, me and people using this forum will believe in the bible...It has been studied by great length my friend.And is yet to written off :winkold:

I'm not gonna debate you, Jerry.

As always with most things religion, there is no evidence. Not even an infinitesimal shred of proof.

Ergo, hokum.

I know crazy isnt it..You would have thought after the evolution of the human brain we would have managed to muster up some kind of pure solid evidence by now. That these so called myths that are wrote in a so called story book are in fact just that...Myths.

Yet even in the modern day with this superior modern evolved human brain all we seem to keep coming up with, is that the time lines along with certain occurances written in the Bible do seem to errr add up.

Strange stuff...

This thread is fun.

It didn't happen. Case closed. Let's move on.

Because you said so? How small and narrow minded..I suppose because you didnt see it, you dont believe it..

Maybe it could be more down to, you dont understand it?

It suggests that an invisible man in the sky, who is supposedly perfect, cocked up his perfect creation so badly that he had to wipe the slate clean and start again. At this point, religious folk are no doubt crying foul and saying 'but it was the sin of men that enraged God!', completely failing to understand that sin was supposedly introduced by Satan, who is another creation of, you guessed it, the invisible perfect man in the sky.

Anyway...

So God got ratty that people were mean and, like a wise and loving God (and nothing like a petulant child), he decided to destroy literally everything on the planet, including the millions of animals that were no doubt completely innocent in the whole situation. Some would suggest that a much smarter thing to do would be to give the bad guys strategic heart attacks and spare all of the innocent animals, children etc, or that an even smarter thing to do would be to NOT CREATE THE **** DEVIL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Divine intervention my arse!

For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (or angel) isn't free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

1.It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay down one's life for his friend (John 15:13).

2.The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's Word about righteousness is true.

3.If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.

4.If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we'd be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall.

5.God has reasons about which we know nothing.

The reason that God permits sickness and bad things, is because sin is in the world. Sickness is a result of the fall which was a sinful rebellion against God. Sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12) and since we are all in Adam (1 Cor. 15:22) we are all subject to sickness and sin.

Noah's ark is coming to Kentucky.

Answers in Genesis, the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum, plans to build a life-size replica of the biblical ark by 2014. If the plan comes to fruition, the ark will be part of a new theme park called Ark Encounter that, like the Creation Museum, aims to mix a literal take on the Bible with family fun.

The Creation Museum, also in Kentucky, is described on its comprehensive website as a "state-of-the-art 70,000-square-foot museum [that] brings the pages of the Bible to life." Exhibits include Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; children playing near dinosaurs; and a movie called "Men in White" that explores how the Bible and science match up.

Under the Ark Encounter portion of the website, Ken Ham, the president, chief executive and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S. and the Creation Museum, explains why the group wants to build it. In part, he says, it's to demonstrate how Noah could have built the ark. The effort also will teach visitors about "the geological aspects of the flood" and help them gain an understanding of "God's grace and mercy," he says.

Answers in Genesis has determined that the biblical wooden ship was 500 feet long and about 80 feet high, and plans to have a team of Amish builders construct the new version entirely of wood.

The Creation Museum is accepting donations to help make its ark a reality. The fundraising goal is $24.5 million, according to its website, and so far nearly $3.7 million has been raised.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/noahs-ark-answers-in-genesis.html

There were two qualifications for the animals on board the Ark: they not only had to be those which moved about on the earth, but also those that had the breath of life, or "nephesh." The word "nephesh" refers to those animals with soul: or, if you like, "responsive personality." Thus, you would have all mammals that lived on land, reptiles, and birds. Amphibians did not need the Ark, and insects, worms, bacteria, etc., do not have a nervous system which is complex enough to mark the animal or organism as having a uniqueness and the trainability which "nephesh" implies. Thus, these organisms were preserved in various ways outside the Ark through the flood.

.

So did Noah buy 700,000 sets of mini SCUBA equipment to help all the different varieties of beetle alone, survive ?

Did you see the caterpillar survive through years of arctic winters on Frozen Planet the other night?

Pires was missing from our game even when he was on the pitch.

The major diffrence between Arsenal when Wenger took over and Villa now is there are more 'missing parts' than dots at Villa.

Also Wenger was rewarded with success, the CL was open to him and reinforced that behaviour and opened the club up to talent that wouldn't have previously been available.

Even if Deschamps did fill the gaps and join the dots we would still be in the positon where at least 5 clubs in the league are ahead of us. Without the extra income the money dries up, without the wage budget the 'missing parts' become harder to recruit. Without trophies the existing 'missing parts' begin to look elsewhere.

And Villa too would be rewarded with success..Its not hard to get into the top 6 because beyond that, our game is very average. Newcastle are proving this season, that under a different approach in the trans market they can easily climb amongst the top teams. l

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/oct/08/newcastle-united-french-scouting-policy

If you look at pretty all the teams below top 6, they are all doing the same thing. Stoke, Sunderland, Bolton, etc Only Newcastle recently have made a few additions from doing some research and hard scouting overseas. Its not far off the kind of set up to what Arsene did when he 1st arrived. And even at this early stage its already bringing and showing results.

McLeish is no different to Moyes, Bruce, Pulis, McCarthy etc etc..You may as well have one of those as manger because they all think on the same level. Their vision and scope is all similar and they will always be just average. The only way to achieve success on a limited budget(in terms of City/Chelsea etc) is to stick a spanner into the works and bring a different approach.Variety is the spice of life...We can be doing this same old, same old for the next 15 years, until one day someone on our board decides to say "this approach dosnt work"...And only then can we start to get out of the Mr. Average club.

great bunch of emerging players that he could mould into a team, these things he cant see with as great detail whilst in the Premiership.

Here I think we will always disagree. whislt I accept that he could find enough talent at a young enough age to nuture into a strong team he will never be afforded the luxury of enough time to do so.

Arsenal are in real danger of losing their CL placve this year, they lose that status and the income it generates and the wheels will very quickly fall off the wagon.

That's why he signed players like Arteta this summer not some awesome 12 year for a packet of chocolate buttons.

Deschamps might find a few good players if he ever came to the Villa but imo he would not be able to enough, quickly enough to keep those players here in order to build a team around. As soon as they begin to look decent in a team finishing 6th the likes of City and Utd will snap them up, as we have seen over the past few seasons.

Wenger could do this before because he was able to adapt a team with a solid base quickly, when there was an opportunity to be exploited. What opportunity is there for Villa?

Every manager pretty much brings personnel with them when they join a new club, whether than be playing or coaching side, it nearly always happens. McLeish knew Hutton from Rangers/Scotland so bought him to our club...Hutton is McLeish's little baby and set of knowledge if you like.He bought Grant from Blues, his little right hand (clueless) lttle friend if you like....Its all pants on what we could have.

Deschamps would bring the "missing parts" into our team/squad to join up the dots...Alot like Wenger brought the "missing parts" to help Arsenal become a great force in English football. What is missing from Villa's game Deschamps will find.. Hutton wasnt a missing part from Villa's game..Makoun was, Cabaye was, Bent was, Pires was...Hutton are 2 a penny in UK footballmand we didnt need such a player.

What was the league record signing when Viera was bought for £3.5m? £12m? £15m?

What wages did he offer him when he signed? How does that compare to other clubs? To our wage structure now let alone back then?

Wenger is good, I dont dispute that but he's still paid decent money for players either in fees or wages, money that Villa doesn't have right now.

SO to use Wenger as the basis for the argument that Deschamps could turn Villa into a dominant team in Europe doesn't wash with me.

The production line in France for quality players is the best on globe. Deschamps would have the edge on knowing and ability to sign such players...Just like the position Wenger was in when he 1st landed on our shores.. McLeish v Deschamps = Deschamps can bring alot more to the table. 4m for Hutton? Or 4m for a top 4 quality player? Which would you prefer?

When the great Houllier spent 4 million on a player did he turn out to be top 4 quality? What makes you think Deschamps could do it?

Houllier only had 1 Jan window..He had no Summer of which to mould a set of players..But even in his 1 Jan Window his signings shown more quality than all MON's and McLeish's put together. Pires for instance was a world class technical player, he wasnt bought in to play 100% of games week in week out, he was bought in to help coach players like Bannan and co' It was so the training ground had better pedigree amongst our young emerging players to learn from. K'Mac, Grant and McLeish can only offer so much to young players, Pires was the the spice and the missing part from the young player's games. It wasnt hard to see the reasoning behind the appointments..Great clubs have great personnel in the background.

Makoun is a top 4 quality player and again if you look at our play, he was something that was missing from our game.= Moving the ball quickly without giving it away. He also signed Bent, another top 4 quality player..Reports have Cabaye coming out to press saying he was going to join us had Houllier stayed....Guess what, another top 4 quality player..Can you imagine the slick passing from Makoun and the skills of Cabaye in the same team?(both costing less that a combined 10m) And this is with Bent up top and all our kids being taught and growing up on the training ground alongside Pires and co'?

You just do get it do you?

Also, those frnch players were signing for a French manager making their decision easier. The failed Venglos experiment aside Wenger was seen as ground breaking as was the appointment of a foreign manager. nowadays they're ten a penny in the English game. Has Wenger got better contacts than Mancini? Villas-Boas has got Mourinho's ear and i'd bet contacts, Fergie can get who he wants up to a point. The games changing and Wenger no longer has the clout he was lucky enough to have in one isoalted period in the 90s.

fair play to him he used what he had and did brilliantly. but that's gone now. And I think Arsenal will also falter in the next few seasons.

This is what ive been saying, although the good, young, up to date foreign managers in the Prem being 10 a penny is way off the mark, as all the foreign managers in the Prem are the ones at the top end of the table. Even Martinez has spent all his modern day life in the UK, so he would hardly be on top of the game in continental Europe. Where competition in training young players is taken extremely serious and very competitive. Arsene took advantage of his knowledge in the day, he wouldnt have that up date knowledge now, having spending all his time on the Arsenal training ground. Yes he has scouts but he isnt seeing/watching/analizing it 1st hand like he used to, he cant and isnt watching the ins and outs of everyday football life on the continent like he once did. Give him 3-4 seasons managing Lille or Lyon and then he would come back into the Premiership and again take it by storm...Because those 3-4 seasons at Lille etc would open eyes to another great bunch of emerging players that he could mould into a team, these things he cant see with as great detail whilst in the Premiership.