FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach2748No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 13 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
31st Jul 17 20:5425th Feb 13 14:30LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Bradford
Signature
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" Carl Sagan

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:28 pm  
kirkstaller wrote:
No, Genesis 1 is quite clear that humans came after animals but not from animals.


I don't care what Genesis 1 says, however Genesis 1 is quite clearly wrong, as the evidence clearly show that we did evolve from other animals.

I also note that you didn't address my point regarding your comment that we can't be apes because we are humans which is the equivalent of saying that chimpanzees cannot be apes because they are chimpanzees. This line of reasoning may be acceptable from a six year old child but I cannot believe a fully grown adult could make such an argument.

To say that we are animals now is pure lunacy.


Actually to to say we are animals is a fact just as it is a fact to say that dogs or whales are animals. To believe that your particular book of myths is the inerrant word of God however is lunacy.

But your ‘scientific evidence’ is not consistent with scripture, nor is it necessarily the truth.


I don't care if the scientific evidence is consistent with scripture that is the problem of those who choose to believe in scripture. If, however the scientific evidence is inconsistent with scripture then those that reject the scientific evidence because it contradicts scripture end up making themselves look ridiculous.

I also made no reference to truth and nor does science. Science provides provisional and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory does a great job of explaining the diversity of life around us whilst such evidence falsifies the biblical view of creation.

For centuries scientists had us all convinced that the sun orbited the Earth. No doubt that was the ‘truth’ of the day.


Any it was scientists who were able to show that this view was incorrect and replaced it with a much better model which is consistent with the observational evidence. Just as scientists were able to show that the biblical view of creation is incorrect and replaced it with evolutionary theory which does a much better job of explaining the data.

Evolutionary theory may one day be overturned just like any other scientific theory however any theory that replaces Evolution has to explain the evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology.etc which the creationist position is incapable of explaining without those who hold it resorting to falsehoods & misrepresenting the evidence.

Wanting something to be true does not necessarily mean you are biased.


Wanting something to be true doesn't mean you are biased, however it does often lead to confirmation bias where you reject data that does not conform to your particular position. This is why it is silly to start from the position that the bible is true and then find "evidence" to support this position post hoc.

If that were the case, I could accuse atheists who hate religion of the same crime – they blaspheme against the Holy Spirit because they are stubborn and want to be their own masters


I can't speak for other atheists however I'm an atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gods. If evidence could be provided to show that a god existed then I would happily accept such evidence.

You on the other hand are suggested with your quote from Matthew 7:7 that we should start with the belief that the "Holy Spirit" exists and then we will be provided with the evidence, which is putting the cart before the horse.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1318No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 29 200816 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
5th Feb 14 19:5222nd Mar 13 11:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Kirkstall, Leeds

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:40 pm  
Gareth1984 wrote:
I don't care what Genesis 1 says, however Genesis 1 is quite clearly wrong, as the evidence clearly show that we did evolve from other animals.


There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it. That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas.

I also note that you didn't address my point regarding your comment that we can't be apes because we are humans which is the equivalent of saying that chimpanzees cannot be apes because they are chimpanzees.


How can we be apes when apes are animals? My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't. Next time I go the the zoo I'll be sure to look at the people enclosure (as this is an RL forum, let's call this Wheldon Road).

This line of reasoning may be acceptable from a six year old child but I cannot believe a fully grown adult could make such an argument


My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals.

Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they?

We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator.

I don't care if the scientific evidence is consistent with scripture that is the problem of those who choose to believe in scripture.


It's no problem for me. It's actually very easy to reconcile.

If, however the scientific evidence is inconsistent with scripture then those that reject the scientific evidence because it contradicts scripture end up making themselves look ridiculous.


Jesus and his apostles were mocked. The opinions of the eternally lost sadden me, but don't embarrass me.

I also made no reference to truth and nor does science. Science provides provisional and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory does a great job of explaining the diversity of life around us whilst such evidence falsifies the biblical view of creation.


The biblical account is entirely consistent with what we can see before us.

Any it was scientists who were able to show that this view was incorrect and replaced it with a much better model which is consistent with the observational evidence.


Christian scientists did, yes.

Just as scientists were able to show that the biblical view of creation is incorrect and replaced it with evolutionary theory which does a much better job of explaining the data.


Scientists have demonstrated no such thing.

Evolutionary theory may one day be overturned just like any other scientific theory


Aha! Yowzer! Yes, you recognise that it is fallible.

however any theory that replaces Evolution has to explain the evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology.etc which the creationist position is incapable of explaining without those who hold it resorting to falsehoods & misrepresenting the evidence.


Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above?

Wanting something to be true doesn't mean you are biased, however it does often lead to confirmation bias where you reject data that does not conform to your particular position.


Often, but not always.

This is why it is silly to start from the position that the bible is true and then find "evidence" to support this position post hoc.


Like I said, I used to share your view and ended up being a Christian.

I can't speak for other atheists however I'm an atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of gods. If evidence could be provided to show that a god existed then I would happily accept such evidence.


You are not part of the elect. Yet, at least.

You on the other hand are suggested with your quote from Matthew 7:7 that we should start with the belief that the "Holy Spirit" exists and then we will be provided with the evidence, which is putting the cart before the horse.


Mate, that's the way it is. I don't make the rules.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach2748No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 13 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
31st Jul 17 20:5425th Feb 13 14:30LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Bradford
Signature
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" Carl Sagan

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:20 pm  
kirkstaller wrote:
There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it.


I don't have time to provide a list of peer reviewed scientific papers however the following link compiles some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. The article is supported by peer reviewed scientific papers

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The below paper provides an excellent example of evolution in action although there are many other instances of evolution being directly observed in the lab and in nature

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

I know however you will reject any evidence that i provide as it contradicts your particular book of myths. Although you are correct that we didn't evolve from animals as we are still animals.


That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas.


This inane comment does nothing other than demonstrate a lack of maturity on your part.

How can we be apes when apes are animals?


This is like asking how can someone who is English be a Brit when Brits are Europeans. I cannot believe anybody could be ask such a dumb question, although given your previous comment regarding humans not being apes because we are humans nothing you say surprises me any more. Do you actually think about what you post before you actually type?

Creationists who ask why if we "evolved from monkeys" there are still monkeys around sound like intellectuals in comparison to what you have written.

My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't.


Given that you somehow think that humans do not belong to the kingdom of Animalia I suggest that I have a much better grasp of what constitutes an animal than you do. I hope you do not pass down such ignorance to your son.

My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals.


I'd assume he laughed because he realised that even at three years of age he is already more intelligent than his dad. The difference between people and animals is about the same as the difference between Bradfordians and Europeans

Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they?


There is far more to genetics than just similarity amongst species. Creationists may be able to argue away genetic similarities with "same genes, same designer" however there is far more to the genetic evidence than mere similarities.

The link I provided provides examples of exactly where creationism is unable provide a sufficient explanation for genetic similarities. Engenous retroviral insertion is one of the clearest examples which cannot be explained by creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses


We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator.


No it doesn't if humans and other animals shared for instance a different genetic code then this would not refute creationism however had such an observation occurred then evolution would be falsified. #similarities do not in anyway mean we have the same creator as they are not a prediction of creationism, they are however a prediction of evolutionary theory and such observations could have falsified evolution had they been different.

Christian scientists did, yes.


Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made. However it was Christian doctrine which was used as justification for the sun orbiting the earth.

Scientists have demonstrated no such thing.


Yes they have. Simply pretending the evidence that shows that you creation myth is just that a myth and that evolution provides the best explanation of the biological data does not exist will make it go away.

Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above?


I don't have time to go into full detail, however creationism cannot explain the genetic similarities amongst living organisms as the above link shows. Creationism also cannot explain the existence of transitional fossils hence why creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils despite the fact there are numerous examples of such fossils
kirkstaller wrote:
There is no evidence that we evolved from animals. If there is, I'd love for you to show me it.


I don't have time to provide a list of peer reviewed scientific papers however the following link compiles some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. The article is supported by peer reviewed scientific papers

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The below paper provides an excellent example of evolution in action although there are many other instances of evolution being directly observed in the lab and in nature

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

I know however you will reject any evidence that i provide as it contradicts your particular book of myths. Although you are correct that we didn't evolve from animals as we are still animals.


That's if you can spare 5 minutes away from swinging from tree to tree eating bananas.


This inane comment does nothing other than demonstrate a lack of maturity on your part.

How can we be apes when apes are animals?


This is like asking how can someone who is English be a Brit when Brits are Europeans. I cannot believe anybody could be ask such a dumb question, although given your previous comment regarding humans not being apes because we are humans nothing you say surprises me any more. Do you actually think about what you post before you actually type?

Creationists who ask why if we "evolved from monkeys" there are still monkeys around sound like intellectuals in comparison to what you have written.

My 3 year old son knows what animals are. You obviously don't.


Given that you somehow think that humans do not belong to the kingdom of Animalia I suggest that I have a much better grasp of what constitutes an animal than you do. I hope you do not pass down such ignorance to your son.

My 3 year old just laughed when I told him a fully grown human didn't know the difference between people and animals.


I'd assume he laughed because he realised that even at three years of age he is already more intelligent than his dad. The difference between people and animals is about the same as the difference between Bradfordians and Europeans

Seriously, I see where you're coming from in that we have similar genetics. However, whilst it may appear that we are part of the same family, where you incorrectly see 'evolution', I see God's fingerprints. Tell me, if you were molding a batch of figurines from the same clay, there would be similarities between the physical properties of each one, wouldn't there? If you were painting many different styles of pictures,they'd all have the same signature, wouldn't they?


There is far more to genetics than just similarity amongst species. Creationists may be able to argue away genetic similarities with "same genes, same designer" however there is far more to the genetic evidence than mere similarities.

The link I provided provides examples of exactly where creationism is unable provide a sufficient explanation for genetic similarities. Engenous retroviral insertion is one of the clearest examples which cannot be explained by creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses


We all have God's signature imprinted in us. Just because we see it in animals doesn't mean we are the same as them -it means we have the same creator.


No it doesn't if humans and other animals shared for instance a different genetic code then this would not refute creationism however had such an observation occurred then evolution would be falsified. #similarities do not in anyway mean we have the same creator as they are not a prediction of creationism, they are however a prediction of evolutionary theory and such observations could have falsified evolution had they been different.

Christian scientists did, yes.


Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made. However it was Christian doctrine which was used as justification for the sun orbiting the earth.

Scientists have demonstrated no such thing.


Yes they have. Simply pretending the evidence that shows that you creation myth is just that a myth and that evolution provides the best explanation of the biological data does not exist will make it go away.

Care to tell me how creationism fails to explain each of the above?


I don't have time to go into full detail, however creationism cannot explain the genetic similarities amongst living organisms as the above link shows. Creationism also cannot explain the existence of transitional fossils hence why creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils despite the fact there are numerous examples of such fossils
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:03 am  
Big Graeme wrote:
And remind us what your church did to those who said otherwise...


And reply came there none. Archetypal kirkstaller avoidance technique.

The worrying thing is the lack of intellectual capacity to consider anything different from brainwashed prejudices and mantras.

Like the refusal to consider that, had kirkstaller lived in those days, he would have been one of the people lighting the bonfires, and the point being, he would have been spouting forth 100% exactly the same sort of "God told me it's true" bullcrap about the Earth/Sun system as he is in the 21st C. spouting about animals and evolution.

Of course, there are plenty of places still in the 21st C. where vocally criticising religious shibboleths - or even involuntarily infringing - can indeed still get you killed. This is what is scary - that if kirkstaller and we lived in a country where fundamentalist primitive religion was the law, people just like kirkstaller would be the religious police.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:30 am  
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1318No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 29 200816 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
5th Feb 14 19:5222nd Mar 13 11:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Kirkstall, Leeds

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:51 am  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
And reply came there none. Archetypal kirkstaller avoidance technique.


I thought the question was rhetorical, but here's my answer anyway.

'My church' didn't do anything of the sort. Don't blame me for the wrongdoings of the Roman Catholic religion.

Like the refusal to consider that, had kirkstaller lived in those days, he would have been one of the people lighting the bonfires


I don't think so, thou shall not murder is pretty unequivocal.

and the point being, he would have been spouting forth 100% exactly the same sort of "God told me it's true" bullcrap about the Earth/Sun system as he is in the 21st C. spouting about animals and evolution.


Shoulda woulda coulda. You can't say with any degree of accuracy what I would have done. That's just idle speculation.

Of course, there are plenty of places still in the 21st C. where vocally criticising religious shibboleths - or even involuntarily infringing - can indeed still get you killed. This is what is scary - that if kirkstaller and we lived in a country where fundamentalist primitive religion was the law, people just like kirkstaller would be the religious police.


I am no Pharisee.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1318No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 29 200816 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
5th Feb 14 19:5222nd Mar 13 11:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Kirkstall, Leeds

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:52 am  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:


Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:


Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach2748No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 13 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
31st Jul 17 20:5425th Feb 13 14:30LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Bradford
Signature
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" Carl Sagan

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:16 pm  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:


Creationists usually respond to examples of evolution being observed by claiming that new species are still the same "kind" of animal. The problem for creationists is that they are unable to provide a scientific definition of the term "kind".
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Here's another question kirkstaller will not answer:

How does creationism explain brand new species that have evolved within the last 150 years?

:IDEA:


Creationists usually respond to examples of evolution being observed by claiming that new species are still the same "kind" of animal. The problem for creationists is that they are unable to provide a scientific definition of the term "kind".
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach10852No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 21 200618 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
24th Jan 18 12:371st Aug 16 17:10LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:59 pm  
I'm still confused as to why 'God' turned herbivorous dinosaurs into carnivorous dinosaurs because a human (whether you accept humans are apes or not) ate an apple. Perhaps kirkstaller could explain it to me.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels14522No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 26 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
30th Jan 14 14:039th Jan 14 11:22LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Online
Signature
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice.
Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

Re: OMG - Christian wins employment tribunal : Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:14 pm  
kirkstaller wrote:
Nothing there which contradicts Genesis.

Let me get this straight.
Your view is that there's nothing in the evolution of new species that contradicts Genesis.
Your view is that man didn't evolve to become man, he was created as man by god.

So, what is your view about myriad of mutations of human genetic code that have occurred over ten of thousands of years, do they not tell us that man has evolved as he has migrated around the globe?
I'm guessing that you do accept that man has evolved, but that it is your view that whilst man has evolved, he has only evolved from the originally-god-created form of man.

Where do other forms such as australopithicus and neanderthal man fit into your view?
Were they men or animals?
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 221 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
4m
Accounts
Bubba
147
12m
Film game
karetaker
6013
40m
IMG scores
BarnsleyGull
271
53m
Transfer Talk V5
chapylad
562
60m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Wanderer
63330
Recent
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
Recent
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
Recent
Out of contract 2025
Abe Froman
69
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
2m
Film game
karetaker
6013
2m
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
2m
Rumours and signings v9
Big Steve
28923
2m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
RLFANS News
1
3m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
3m
Jerome Luai
Zig
21
3m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
4m
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
4m
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
5m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Wigg'n
6
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
4m
Accounts
Bubba
147
12m
Film game
karetaker
6013
40m
IMG scores
BarnsleyGull
271
53m
Transfer Talk V5
chapylad
562
60m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Wanderer
63330
Recent
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
Recent
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
Recent
Out of contract 2025
Abe Froman
69
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
2m
Film game
karetaker
6013
2m
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
2m
Rumours and signings v9
Big Steve
28923
2m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
RLFANS News
1
3m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
3m
Jerome Luai
Zig
21
3m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
4m
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
4m
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
5m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Wigg'n
6
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!