Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    It's sad really, given all the ways we've come up with to separate ourselves from each other...exactly what happening with this gay bishop story...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    How about the idea that adam and eve had 3 sons? Incest much?You cant produce the genetic variation you see today from just two original people, massive inbreeding would have occurred.The story is obviously not meant to be taken literally.
    They had perfect DNA, inbreeding would have had no bad effects, duh.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Evoloution doesnt say anything about the origin of life just how species change over time.So no ut hasnt been disproved.Its still unknown how life originated.To see evidence for evolution you only have to look at dogs.Artificial selection working over thousands of years has produced many different varieties.N atural selection over billons of years produces all the many different animal species we see today.The earth is most definitely not 6000 years old.To put that in perspective thats just as stupid as believing the distance to new york from san francisco is 200 yards.What about radiometric dating of rocks?What about the fact that we can measure the distance to stars that are billiions of light years away? What about all the fossils that are far older than 6000 years old?Tgere is plenty of evidence for an old earth but only a book written by who even knows provides evidence for a young earth.
    Carbon dating isn't even reliable - it is based on assumptions.

    And dog's adaptations only provides proof for microevolution which I agree with...

    so what now?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    It's sad really, given all the ways we've come up with to separate ourselves from each other...exactly what happening with this gay bishop story...
    pretty sure you started it.

    Main point is, a Bible believing Christian will know and tell you if you ask that homosexual behaviour is not okay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    pretty sure you started it.

    Main point is, a Bible believing Christian will know and tell you if you ask that homosexual behaviour is not okay.
    I started all the ways in which human kind separate themselves into different factions?

    You ain't one for thinking things through are ya?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Carbon dating isn't even reliable - it is based on assumptions.

    And dog's adaptations only provides proof for microevolution which I agree with...

    so what now?
    Ok so how come you dont accept evolution? Perhaps next time you get sick you should just pray and see if that works.After all thats all based on biological science which is itself based upon evolution.Why do you only accept what some scientists say and not others?Do you believe in the germ theory of disease? Do you just have faith your computer will work in the morning? You can't accept some bits of science as ok and reject others because you dont like it.Different scientists use the same methods.So if you reject evolution you should reject other science as well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I started all the ways in which human kind separate themselves into different factions?

    You ain't one for thinking things through are ya?
    started it in this thread
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Ok so how come you dont accept evolution? Perhaps next time you get sick you should just pray and see if that works.After all thats all based on biological science which is itself based upon evolution.Why do you only accept what some scientists say and not others?Do you believe in the germ theory of disease? Do you just have faith your computer will work in the morning? You can't accept some bits of science as ok and reject others because you dont like it.Different scientists use the same methods.So if you reject evolution you should reject other science as well.
    Not really at all. If people reject some science, they must reject all?

    So if you don't believe in the Multi-verse theory which is scientific but so is the One Universe theory, you must reject all other science.

    Please stop.

    I accept microevolution because it has obvious evidence and adaptation is a real thing.

    Macroevolution has never actually been observed EVER.

    Besides, getting sick due to maybe a sneeze has nothing to do with macroevolution...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I started all the ways in which human kind separate themselves into different factions?

    You ain't one for thinking things through are ya?
    I don't even know how you can put that second sentence through without shame seeing as you clearly have no valid reasons or evidence to invalidate the Adam and Eve story which is really ironic.

    Ignoring the fact your post didn't specify, you clear didn't think it all through by assuming I was talking about all human-kind when I was talking about it in this thread. :/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Not really at all. If people reject some science, they must reject all?

    So if you don't believe in the Multi-verse theory which is scientific but so is the One Universe theory, you must reject all other science.

    Please stop.

    I accept microevolution because it has obvious evidence and adaptation is a real thing.

    Macroevolution has never actually been observed EVER.

    Besides, getting sick due to maybe a sneeze has nothing to do with macroevolution...
    The difference is that the multiverse theory is just a hypothesis.Its largely speculation.It has no evidence to back it up yet.Evolution on the other hand has tons of evidence to back it up.Just as much evidence as the germ theory of disease.You havent ever observed evolution in action because it takes billions of years to take place.It doesnt just happen overnight or over a thousand years.It takes ages of small gradual changes until a species becomes completely different.I dont understand why you find this concept hard.Its a bit like a child and an old person.The old person looks nothing like the child but after a lifetime of small gradual changes the child becomes old.It doesnt just happen all at once.There is no point where one changes into the other its a continuous thing.Small gradual changes result in the child looking completely different.Its like that with evolution on a much larger scale.Evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record where you can see these changes taking place and from dna.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaron2515)
    What do you think of a bishop being in a homosexual relationship?
    Not only is it the homosexual part. But he's meant to be celibate!
    Is he supposed to be celibate? I mean, CofE Clergy are allowed to have families? So how on earth are they expected to do that when they have to be celibate? Unless the answer is immaculate conseption, then I suspect that he has broken no rules lmao. And as it stands, his sexuality has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. His council is no less valid due to his homosexuality, if he's a man of God, then he will accept that God made him in his image, and that God made no mistake. Case closed, all is well!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    The difference is that the multiverse theory is just a hypothesis.Its largely speculation.It has no evidence to back it up yet.Evolution on the other hand has tons of evidence to back it up.Just as much evidence as the germ theory of disease.You havent ever observed evolution in action because it takes billions of years to take place.It doesnt just happen overnight or over a thousand years.It takes ages of small gradual changes until a species becomes completely different.I dont understand why you find this concept hard.Its a bit like a child and an old person.The old person looks nothing like the child but after a lifetime of small gradual changes the child becomes old.It doesnt just happen all at once.There is no point where one changes into the other its a continuous thing.Small gradual changes result in the child looking completely different.Its like that with evolution on a much larger scale.Evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record where you can see these changes taking place and from dna.
    As I said, I have already separated macroevolution and microevolution and its obvious you don't notice that.

    Macroevolution has no evidence.

    Also the Multi-verse theory has a lot of scientific thinking and evidence behind it but so does the One Universe Theory.

    We still use lots of theories in Science, such as Collision Theory.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MPH125)
    Is he supposed to be celibate? I mean, CofE Clergy are allowed to have families? So how on earth are they expected to do that when they have to be celibate? Unless the answer is immaculate conseption, then I suspect that he has broken no rules lmao. And as it stands, his sexuality has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. His council is no less valid due to his homosexuality, if he's a man of God, then he will accept that God made him in his image, and that God made no mistake. Case closed, all is well!
    1) You're right. Celibacy as a requirement for Anglican clergy was abolished in 1549.

    2) Homosexual behaviour is a sin in the eyes of God. If you want to serve God but don't accept the fact that the wrong thing you desire to do is sinful then it obviously interfering in his job. God doesn't make people homosexual and that logic doesn't work otherwise everyone would be gay or straight. God didn't make a mistake making him but he made the mistake of seeing homosexual behaviour as something that is right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    As I said, I have already separated macroevolution and microevolution and its obvious you don't notice that.

    Macroevolution has no evidence.

    Also the Multi-verse theory has a lot of scientific thinking and evidence behind it but so does the One Universe Theory.

    We still use lots of theories in Science, such as Collision Theory.
    Well its obvious you have a poor understanding of science.Even the catholic church doesnt hold that the genesis story is literal.Why? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.We know the earth is not 6000 years old.Just like we know its not flat.The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that macroevolution occurs over a much longer period of time.Since you apparently think the earth is 6000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary you're obviously not going to think macroevolution is real.If god created everything 6000 years ago why can we see stars that are billions of light years away? Light travels at a certain speeds in a vacuum.We know its taken billions of years to reach us.Why are there fossils from ancient life forms? Why can we date rocks back 4 billion years using radometric dating? What about dating from moon rocks which have been dated to around the same age as earth?Did God do all that just for banter? Seems like a waste of time if he did.Y ou say there is no evidence for evolution yet you're basing your entire life on a book for which there really is no evidence.You dont even know who wrote the book.You've never seen,heard,spoken to or touched this god.Where is your evidence for anything?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Well its obvious you have a poor understanding of science.Even the catholic church doesnt hold that the genesis story is literal.Why? Because the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.We know the earth is not 6000 years old.Just like we know its not flat.The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that macroevolution occurs over a much longer period of time.Since you apparently think the earth is 6000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary you're obviously not going to think macroevolution is real.If god created everything 6000 years ago why can we see stars that are billions of light years away? Light travels at a certain speeds in a vacuum.We know its taken billions of years to reach us.Why are there fossils from ancient life forms? Why can we date rocks back 4 billion years using radometric dating? What about dating from moon rocks which have been dated to around the same age as earth?Did God do all that just for banter? Seems like a waste of time if he did.Y ou say there is no evidence for evolution yet you're basing your entire life on a book for which there really is no evidence.You dont even know who wrote the book.You've never seen,heard,spoken to or touched this god.Where is your evidence for anything?
    Catholics aren't even Bible-believing Christians so that's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with the Genesis Creation story seeing as it never says the world is flat or say it's 6000 years old but okay.

    Macroevolution has a lot more differences than that so maybe it's you that has the poor understanding of science.

    1) Carbon dating is faulty and unreliable, and that has been proven so, so many times. Even if he did it 'for bants', calling it a waste of time is pretty funny seeing as you're a non-omniscient individual trying to judge the logic of an omniscient spirit.

    2) How can there be no evidence for a holy book?

    3) There is much evidence for the existence of God but no proof. If there was proof, you would be believing in him right now and you would have no logical choice but to.

    4) Starlight problem.... TIME DILATION..... HELLLLLLLLLLO
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Catholics aren't even Bible-believing Christians so that's irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with the Genesis Creation story seeing as it never says the world is flat or say it's 6000 years old but okay.

    Macroevolution has a lot more differences than that so maybe it's you that has the poor understanding of science.

    1) Carbon dating is faulty and unreliable, and that has been proven so, so many times. Even if he did it 'for bants', calling it a waste of time is pretty funny seeing as you're a non-omniscient individual trying to judge the logic of an omniscient spirit.

    2) How can there be no evidence for a holy book?

    3) There is much evidence for the existence of God but no proof. If there was proof, you would be believing in him right now and you would have no logical choice but to.

    4) Starlight problem.... TIME DILATION..... HELLLLLLLLLLO
    Yeah there is nothing wrong with the genesis creation story except for the fact that a magical supernatural man suddenly wished the entire universe into existence in seven days.Makes perfect sense.You know exactly what I meant when I said there was no evidence for the bible so dont pretend.There is no evidence any of the claims the bible makes are true except for the bible.Essentially the bible is true because the bible says so.Thats not evidence for anything.There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god.The only reason you believe in him is because you've been brainwashed by your parents who were in turn indoctrinated by their parents and so on.Im not sure what time dilation has to do with that.Time dilation refers to the slowing down of time due to high velocities or strong gravitational forces.It doesnt account for the fact that light travels at 3*10^8 meters per second in a vacuum and the age of the stars.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Yeah there is nothing wrong with the genesis creation story except for the fact that a magical supernatural man suddenly wished the entire universe into existence in seven days.Makes perfect sense.You know exactly what I meant when I said there was no evidence for the bible so dont pretend.There is no evidence any of the claims the bible makes are true except for the bible.Essentially the bible is true because the bible says so.Thats not evidence for anything.There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of god.The only reason you believe in him is because you've been brainwashed by your parents who were in turn indoctrinated by their parents and so on.Im not sure what time dilation has to do with that.Time dilation refers to the slowing down of time due to high velocities or strong gravitational forces.It doesnt account for the fact that light travels at 3*10^8 meters per second in a vacuum and the age of the stars.
    1) God isn't a man so you've already failed. He wished the entire universe into existence and created the earth and space in 6 days not seven. You have too many misconceptions. Also, I don't know how a random explosion which many scientists have even said does not make sense or could not happen makes any more sense.

    2) LOL, there is tons of evidence for the claims of the Bible and it's prophecies have been proven time and time again. Stop making wild claims with no evidence themselves. Never heard of Cold Case Christianity? The Bible has most accurate transcript rate in the whole world. The Gospels have been proven to be an accurate depiction of Jesus' life through cold case methods.

    3) If it's only because I am indoctrinated, then why is my older sister an atheist? Also, why do I have friends with atheist parents but they are Christians or agnostic? Stop trying to generalise because you don't know of the amount of overwhelming evidence for God.

    4) Lemme just quote this:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    We now have the keys to understanding how starlight can reach us from such vast distances in just a few thousand years of Earth time. The days of the Creation Week were recorded from the point of view of an observer on the earth so the time reference in Genesis is Earth time. On Day 4, as God commenced stretching out the heavens, the mass of the universe (presumably including the ‘waters above’ which were separated out on Day 2) would have been confined to a much smaller volume of space than is the case today. Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4. The Humphreys model5on the other hand, also based on General Relativity, has clocks at the outer edge of the cosmos running much faster than earth-bound clocks because of gravitational time dilation.

    By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today.6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!So what do we make of supernova 1987A? At 170,000 light years away we are looking at an event that occurred on Day 4 but whose light did not reach us until 1987.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    1) God isn't a man so you've already failed. He wished the entire universe into existence and created the earth and space in 6 days not seven. You have too many misconceptions. Also, I don't know how a random explosion which many scientists have even said does not make sense or could not happen makes any more sense.

    2) LOL, there is tons of evidence for the claims of the Bible and it's prophecies have been proven time and time again. Stop making wild claims with no evidence themselves. Never heard of Cold Case Christianity? The Bible has most accurate transcript rate in the whole world. The Gospels have been proven to be an accurate depiction of Jesus' life through cold case methods.

    3) If it's only because I am indoctrinated, then why is my older sister an atheist? Also, why do I have friends with atheist parents but they are Christians or agnostic? Stop trying to generalise because you don't know of the amount of overwhelming evidence for God.

    4) Lemme just quote this:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    We now have the keys to understanding how starlight can reach us from such vast distances in just a few thousand years of Earth time. The days of the Creation Week were recorded from the point of view of an observer on the earth so the time reference in Genesis is Earth time. On Day 4, as God commenced stretching out the heavens, the mass of the universe (presumably including the ‘waters above’ which were separated out on Day 2) would have been confined to a much smaller volume of space than is the case today. Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4. The Humphreys model5on the other hand, also based on General Relativity, has clocks at the outer edge of the cosmos running much faster than earth-bound clocks because of gravitational time dilation.

    By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today.6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!So what do we make of supernova 1987A? At 170,000 light years away we are looking at an event that occurred on Day 4 but whose light did not reach us until 1987.
    I have too many misconceptions? And then you call the big bang an explosion.The big bang wasnt an explosion.We know that the universe is expanding today so at some point in the past it must have been smaller.The big bang is just the name for that expansion.It doesnt describe what caused the universes existence.That is unknown.But we can try find out instead of making stuff up.That last quote is complete nonsense.And I have the vast majority of the worlds scientists on my side.Why do you think you know more science than them? I'm done arguing with you.If you're going to remain set on creationism even when all the evidence points the opposite way then there is no point.Perhaps your sister is an atheist because shes smarter than you and actually aquired critical thinking skills.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I have too many misconceptions? And then you call the big bang an explosion.The big bang wasnt an explosion.We know that the universe is expanding today so at some point in the past it must have been smaller.The big bang is just the name for that expansion.It doesnt describe what caused the universes existence.That is unknown.But we can try find out instead of making stuff up.That last quote is complete nonsense.And I have the vast majority of the worlds scientists on my side.Why do you think you know more science than them? I'm done arguing with you.If you're going to remain set on creationism even when all the evidence points the opposite way then there is no point.Perhaps your sister is an atheist because shes smarter than you and actually aquired critical thinking skills.
    You're just describing yourself. I can still call the Big Bang and explosion as the word explosion has multiple definitions.

    The last quote is not nonsense in any-way, you're set on the Big Bang and that's why you're ignoring it.

    The Big Bang has been disproven by some, so I don't know how all the evidence points the same way.

    I acquired more spelling skills than you, that's for sure and I certainly do have critical thinking skills as the starlight problem was just explained but you ginored it.

    Also, when you said instead of making stuff up, people clearly have made the Big Bang up - that's why it's a theory.

    Also this is important...

    The Creation story makes more sense in the fact that an eternal something created something. The Big Bang theory states that something came out of nothing which even science itself disagrees with.

    Just stop.

    Also, the Bible supports an expanding universe so :/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Look you started this conversation so don't try and make me out to be a bad person because I answered your question, alright? Your assumption that I do nothing to help people is also false as I do voluntary work and donate to various charities. One of my jobs is even helping old people haha.

    I think you need to go and read the NT properly because you have clearly misunderstood the message of Jesus. Yes of course we are called to be loving to other people but the simple fact of the matter is that those who sin go to hell and part of the love that Jesus commanded from Christians is to tell people when they are in danger of it.

    In the NT we are encouraged to not associate with christians who are sinning and this bishop obviously falls under that category as he is blatantly sinning whilst being in a position of spiritual authority. The requirements for bishop-hood are laid out in the NT clearly as a man being the husband of one wife who does engage in sexual sin. This bishop clearly violates that rule
    Do you also kill women who are raped in the city (Deuteronomy 22:24-25)? No? Then you're violating the word of God and are not a true Christian.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.