Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (the Christian) God did not make animals with a sense of morality..so if you want the answer from a Christian perspective its that your question does not apply as human morals dont apply to animals.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You could say that about anything really. Black widow spiders kill their mates. Scorpions rape each other. So it's perfectly fine for us to do that too?

    I would have thought it was obvious that the behaviour of animals surely does not dictate what is moral and immoral for us!
    It is not a question of morality but of the inherent contradictions in religion and the flaws of religously justified prejudice against homosexuality. Homosexuality/bisexuality is very prevelant throughout nature, suggesting there must be an evolutionary advantage to have a sector (humans) or whole population of bisexual or homosexual organisms (bonobo monkeys are prime example). Rape and the mate killings are not relevent to apply to humans as they are comparatively rare occurences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Your the one in the wrong. Those Discovery Channel type shows or whatever you got your source from are just exaggerating something insignificant to catch audience. If you talk to a historian who specifies into Holy Scriptures, he can tell you which texts are historically accurate and the correct way to interpret them. Besides don't you think that if these were solid proof there would be some media outbreak or something?

    Oh for crying out loud. How many falsities and guesses are you willing to construct in order to maintain your state of ignorant bliss.

    These are real studies by real historians. As for the study into the falsity of Exodus. That was carried out by Israeli archaeologists themselves. Men with all the motivation in the world to find evidence of their pact with God, and their right to the holy land. Yet they had to come back empty handed and admit that it was simply a falsity. I could go into more detail if you want, and name them individually.

    As for Jesus There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship . We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)

    Something which brings these accounts into greater disrepute, is that when other gospels, such as that of Judas are found, the copies of which are older thant those we possess of the other four. Christians reject them as being false, because they contradict what has been said to be true for so long. All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity. Even the "birthday" of Jesus is of course unknown, not even the year of his miraculous birth is known. The church just stole the already popular date of the 25th December, which in Antiquity was an immensely popular celebration of the birth of the sungod Mithra, - "the light of the world".

    It's such an obvious fabrication, that it is laughable you try and defend it so. Although i notice that you cannot defend it with sources or real world studies. Merely assumptions and your own guesses.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roachy1)
    Rape and the mate killings are not relevent to apply to humans as they are comparatively rare occurences.
    That's one whole can of worms you just opened. Perhaps you should think about human societies before we settled into cities and civilizations. In a state of endemic warfare, short life spans and yes - prevalent rapes. Humans are not nice, especially ones brought up in less progressive cultures. You've somehow managed to omit virtually the whole scope of human history and focused on a naive view of contemporary society as practised by a minority of the global population.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Why would that be evolutionarily advantageous though?

    Evolution kills off organisms which die too early to reproduce - not those which aren't having a good enough time during sex!
    only too species on the planet have sex and enjoy it, humans and dolphins. eg. cats have barbs on the penis so it is painful to both,
    evolution is not about only gaining advantages,if something does not change the way or factor into survival then it will stay, so why is bisexuallity a disadvantage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Oh for crying out loud. How many falsities and guesses are you willing to construct in order to maintain your state of ignorant bliss.

    These are real studies by real historians. As for the study into the falsity of Exodus. That was carried out by Israeli archaeologists themselves. Men with all the motivation in the world to find evidence of their pact with God, and their right to the holy land. Yet they had to come back empty handed and admit that it was simply a falsity. I could go into more detail if you want, and name them individually.

    As for Jesus There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship . We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)

    Something which brings these accounts into greater disrepute, is that when other gospels, such as that of Judas are found, the copies of which are older thant those we possess of the other four. Christians reject them as being false, because they contradict what has been said to be true for so long. All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity. Even the "birthday" of Jesus is of course unknown, not even the year of his miraculous birth is known. The church just stole the already popular date of the 25th December, which in Antiquity was an immensely popular celebration of the birth of the sungod Mithra, - "the light of the world".

    It's such an obvious fabrication, that it is laughable you try and defend it so. Although i notice that you cannot defend it with sources or real world studies. Merely assumptions and your own guesses.
    Well those are just assumptions and theories. They are not definite proof and I don't believe them mainly because they use the word "probably" and "perhaps" a bit too much. Besides all the studies you mentioned could be forged for some other purpose whereas there is no reason why the Holy Scriptures are a whole bunch of lies. And you were hugely mislead is you think is "obvious" because there are millions who are sure it's obviously THE TRUTH and in those millions there are thousands who did some serious research instead of reading some stupid print of some trying to sell his lies or create some outburst. Oh and there are historians ready to contradict them. In fact there are more historians who don't agree with these allegations of "maybe".

    Then again what about the miracles, the apparitions and personal interaction with God?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    only too species on the planet have sex and enjoy it, humans and dolphins. eg. cats have barbs on the penis so it is painful to both,
    evolution is not about only gaining advantages,if something does not change the way or factor into survival then it will stay, so why is bisexuallity a disadvantage?
    I don't think bisexuality is a disadvantage - I think that homosexuality (sex with your own gender even when the opposite gender is available) is an evolutionarily unfavourable trait.
    (Yes I went off topic from bisexuality to homosexuality a bit.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophiaKeuning)
    Uuuuh. Man wrote the bible not God. So what makes you think god does hate that kind off behaviour? God didn't even make the animals directly, they evolved, you see. Ever heard of evolution? See, people like you are ridiculous and so closed minded! Why do you look for flaws? Allow people to have their opinions, allow them to live their life the way they want to. 'I simply want people to see how ridiculous this religion is'. You have made a ridiculous point, you are just showing people how closed minded you are.
    Totaly agree with you here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roachy1)
    Homosexuality/bisexuality is very prevelant throughout nature, suggesting there must be an evolutionary advantage to have a sector (humans) or whole population of bisexual or homosexual organisms (bonobo monkeys are prime example).
    It may be prevalent throughout nature - but why does this suggest there's a evolutionary advantage to it?

    My actual point was that homosexuality seems evolutionarily disadvantageous (in that those who have sex with only their own gender lack the opportunity to pass on their 'gay gene').
    Even if homosexuality is advantageous to a society, I have yet to see why it is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't see why a particular animal being homosexual helps it to reproduce before it dies.

    The existence of homosexual animals can be used as an argument against God - why did God make them that way if he doesn't like homosexual behaviour?
    But it also seems contrary to the idea of natural selection, and survival of the fittest (i.e. fittest to reproduce before death).

    Someone answered by question by saying "there are plenty of theories, but we don't know for sure yet".
    In which case, one could easily provide the same answer in response to the question about God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oodalallyoodalally)
    Genesis and isaiah state that animals were different prior to the origional sin. They didn't kill each other or die and were docile to humans, suggesting that imperfection entered the animal kingdom when humans (to whom animals were in subjection) sinned. A christian might argue therefore that homosexuality entered when imperfection did.
    I'm not fully clued up on the animals killing each other bit, but as for imperfection entering the world when humans sinned. Untrue. Was it not the serpent who supposedly persuaded Eve to eat from that tree? In my opinion that shows that imperfection was already there in the snake. In fact...

    "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." - Genesis 3:1

    Therefore, a Christian cannot argue that homosexuality entered when imperfection did, surely - since imperfection must've already been there - just not in humans.

    And I think that's where you're answer lies OP - maybe God created animals differently to humans from the start. Once human ate from that tree, they knew right from wrong and so it was a conscious choice to act wrongly. Maybe early "weaker" humans imitated animals and the various actions they perform, knowing that these actions were wrong but making a conscious decision to do it anyway. And, through evolution, these 'wrong' actions have become 'natural' in certain humans. Who knows?

    I'm agnostic so I don't really know what to believe (for example, I believe in the big bang, but was there a God who created that or not? I don't know.) - I'm just bouncing around a few theories here
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    It quite clearly states that its a method of conflict resolution. It's not difficult to imagine that given the choice between humping an angry monkey and getting torn apart limb by limb by an angry monkey - that humping is not only more resource efficient but allows an individual to avoid being made an outcast of his group and hence - has continued access to monkey ladies.
    The problem is, a homosexual creature (i.e. one which prefers to have sex with its own gender, even when the opposite gender is available) is not going to be interested in access to "monkey ladies". So homosexuality of this type has no manner of propagating itself into future generations, and is evolutionarily disadvantageous.
    (Note that I'm talking specifically about evolutionary advantage, not advantage in general)

    OK, I strayed off the topic from bisexuality to homosexuality a little - but the point is that if bisexuality can be used as an argument against God, in the way that the OP has attempted, then homosexuality can be equally used as an argument against evolution - it's simply a way of pointing out the OP's flawed reasoning.

    The fact is that there are many theories, but no certain knowledge about why homosexuality exists, even in the face of evolution.
    But then the same response can be given to someone who asks why God allows the existence of bisexual animals.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    OK, I strayed off the topic from bisexuality to homosexuality a little
    You failed to refute my explanation for the case of the bisexual creature. You've only said it is irrelevant to homosexual creatures. That was not my point anyway - I was referring to bisexual animals. Try again.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    but the point is that if bisexuality can be used as an argument against God, in the way that the OP has attempted, then homosexuality can be equally used as an argument against evolution - it's simply a way of pointing out the OP's flawed reasoning.
    No it cannot. Evolution is a requirement for adaptation to changing environments. It can be physical or social. If the environment changes, then those best placed in the new environment will thrive.

    How is it possible for there to be a "best placed" group in a species?

    For this it is obvious that you need an inherent mechanism for diversity. This means that all the animals in the species will not necessarily be optimised for their present environment. A part of the cost of diversity are behaviours and genetics that do not make sense in the environment. A part of that is homosexuality.

    There will always be froth in successful species, because it is a side-product of the requirement for diversity. If there is no diversity, evolution dictates you will not be around for long. See how hard some tree species suffer at the hand of one disease. I hope I have made this as simple as possible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    You failed to refute my explanation for the case of the bisexual creature. You've only said it is irrelevant to homosexual creatures. That was not my point anyway - I was referring to bisexual animals. Try again.
    I wasn't attempting to refute your explanation for the bisexual creature. You may well be right, it doesn't matter to me.

    All I'm doing os taking the OP's bad argument, and providing a similar bad argument, in order to illustrate the flaw in the OP's bad argument.

    This means that all the animals in the species will not necessarily be optimised for their present environment. A part of the cost of diversity are behaviours and genetics that do not make sense in the environment. A part of that is homosexuality.
    OK, explain to me this one thing:

    Suppose you have a population which is diverse, as a result of homosexuality, and it's causing this population to thrive, in the manner you've described above.

    How does homosexuality get into the next generation?


    It's not like an animal in the Arctic not having a furry enough coat - even though it's not ideal for the environment, it provides diversity. Homosexuality is not simply something which doesn't make sense in a particular environment - it actually prevents reproduction.

    I think you're missing the difference between something being advantageous and something being evolutionarily advantageous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It may be prevalent throughout nature - but why does this suggest there's a evolutionary advantage to it?
    a common misconception is that evolution is always benifical. imagine all people have brown eyes, one day a child is born with blue eyes, this does not affect it's ability to survive so it continues.
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    My actual point was that homosexuality seems evolutionarily disadvantageous (in that those who have sex with only their own gender lack the opportunity to pass on their 'gay gene').
    Even if homosexuality is advantageous to a society, I have yet to see why it is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't see why a particular animal being homosexual helps it to reproduce before it dies.
    it does not why do you have blond hair or ginger hair this is a disadvantage, as you are more easily seen. but evolution contiunues as we can cope, being gay is fine in the animal world as they don't care about being loyal to one partner, homosexuality, used to have people have sex with the oppisite gender to continue there genes, they want kids, now we have surigattes and sperm doners, a gay person having sex with a woman does not make him any less gay.
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The existence of homosexual animals can be used as an argument against God - why did God make them that way if he doesn't like homosexual behaviour?
    But it also seems contrary to the idea of natural selection, and survival of the fittest (i.e. fittest to reproduce before death).
    survival of the best adapted as i like to call it, it does not affect natural selection.
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Someone answered by question by saying "there are plenty of theories, but we don't know for sure yet".
    In which case, one could easily provide the same answer in response to the question about God.
    hardly 50:50 though
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    a common misconception is that evolution is always benifical. imagine all people have brown eyes, one day a child is born with blue eyes, this does not affect it's ability to survive so it continues.

    it does not why do you have blond hair or ginger hair this is a disadvantage, as you are more easily seen. but evolution contiunues as we can cope, being gay is fine in the animal world as they don't care about being loyal to one partner, homosexuality, used to have people have sex with the oppisite gender to continue there genes, they want kids, now we have surigattes and sperm doners, a gay person having sex with a woman does not make him any less gay.
    I agree with your thing about blue eyes, and ginger hair etc. But it's perfectly possible that such people will live long enough to reproduce, so it's easy for their genes to get into the next generation.
    Evolution need not be beneficial - in fact, it might also be detrimental. But it cannot possibly be so detrimental that an organism stands no chance at reproducing before death. For example, you're never going to get an species which evolves to have no reproductive organs, and then passes on this trait to future generations, because it has no future generation!

    However - with regards to homosexuality (and when I say homosexuality, I'm specifically referring to those organisms which will not have sex with the opposite gender, but only with their own gender), in the animal world and ancient human world where they have no sperm donors and surrogates, I simply see no reason why a gay gene stands a good enough chance of getting into the next generation, to make this type of behaviour so prevalent today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree with your thing about blue eyes, and ginger hair etc. But it's perfectly possible that such people will live long enough to reproduce, so it's easy for their genes to get into the next generation.
    Evolution need not be beneficial - in fact, it might also be detrimental. But it cannot possibly be so detrimental that an organism stands no chance at reproducing before death. For example, you're never going to get an species which evolves to have no reproductive organs, and then passes on this trait to future generations, because it has no future generation!
    evolution will never happen as such, as it happens mutation by mutation,being born without a heart does not mean all children are born without hearts.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    However - with regards to homosexuality (and when I say homosexuality, I'm specifically referring to those organisms which will not have sex with the opposite gender, but only with their own gender), in the animal world and ancient human world where they have no sperm donors and surrogates, I simply see no reason why a gay gene stands a good enough chance of getting into the next generation, to make this type of behaviour so prevalent today.
    you seemed to dismiss the fact i said they wanted children so they will have sex, gay men have sex with women, to have children, they dislike the process of manufacture, but love the product. Obvioulsy refusing to have such sex would end you gene pool, however as the "gay gene" as it is known is a more common random mutation, due to the set up of DNA in production of ova/sperm, and as such it's mutations will always happen there is no way to get rid of it from our cells, unless a life form evolved differentlyfrom a primordial stage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    You'd probably be able to argue more convincingly if your instinctual response to someone disagreeing with you wasn't to say the other person is ignorant or lack knowledge on the subject. I didn't get what you mean, partly because you didn't make yourself clear enough, partly because I didn't give it enough thought. Okay?

    Your reasoning that having some historical truth in a novel means that other things in the novel are truthful is a little suspect I feel (which is a polite way of saying that's crap logic). How about I write some bg fantasy epic about Simon Cowell, and we'll use your reasoning to say there is truth in that. I'm pretty sure that constitutes an appeal to authority or something.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

    And why only the Abrahamic religions? Some Eastern scriptures- (I'll use the Vedas cos that's the only one I've read from) are pretty damn good. I mean, I've always found that despite the Abrahamic scriptures claiming to be peaceful, they are riddled with violence. What could be more violent than eternal torture? Unlike them, the Vedas are all about peace and balance and enlightenment. An omnibenevolent God would be far more likely to inspire the writing of something like the Vedas. Just my thoughts.

    I'm not really concerned actually. I'll never truly understand how someone who's given real thought to religion can still believe in it, but it doesn't concern me. I'm so confident that no religious belief is true that it's of no concern to me or my life. I just focus on my future prospects, being happy, helping others around me be happy.

    Sorry, just wanted to encourage you to reflect/research upon the topic a bit more then you already done.


    I didn't explain that one well. I was talking about the allegations of everything being some big conspiracy/lie. If that was true than how could these be historical facts.

    Good for you.

    When read in the context of that time it's really is not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Well those are just assumptions and theories. They are not definite proof and I don't believe them mainly because they use the word "probably" and "perhaps" a bit too much. Besides all the studies you mentioned could be forged for some other purpose whereas there is no reason why the Holy Scriptures are a whole bunch of lies. And you were hugely mislead is you think is "obvious" because there are millions who are sure it's obviously THE TRUTH and in those millions there are thousands who did some serious research instead of reading some stupid print of some trying to sell his lies or create some outburst.
    What other direct evidence is their for Jesus, apart from the Gospels written by his fanboys centuries after his death? You and all the millions of followers have apparently done your research. So? Where is it?

    Also, you are talking about assumptions etc.. Are you denying the ancient mystery cults existed before Jesus was born? These are cults which have physical evidence found all over the Roman empire, most notably at Pompei. Like i said above, there is almost nothing original about Jesus or his story, it is just a recycling of previous myths which have existed for thousands of years. How would you explain that away? coincidence? The devil? :curious:

    Oh and there are historians ready to contradict them. In fact there are more historians who don't agree with these allegations of "maybe".
    I notice you keep talking about these historians, yet you never mention them. :holmes: Perhaps you could provide archaeologists who say Exodus happened, who have dug more intensely or widely, or have had more of a motivation than their Israeli counterparts who concluded it's probably all a myth, a fabrication.? I don't think you can.

    Then again what about the miracles, the apparitions and personal interaction with God?
    Personal interaction with the christian god you believe in is rubbished by the fact that if you were born in India/Saudi/Olympian Greece/Rome/Persia etc..etc.. Or any other land which worshipped any other of the 30,000 dieties which have been worshipped throughout history. You would be praying and talking to that interpretatioon of God.

    Doesn't that fact devalue your relationship with the christian god? Or maybe bring into question whether it is all an illusion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What other direct evidence is their for Jesus, apart from the Gospels written by his fanboys centuries after his death? You and all the millions of followers have apparently done your research. So? Where is it?

    Also, you are talking about assumptions etc.. Are you denying the ancient mystery cults existed before Jesus was born? These are cults which have physical evidence found all over the Roman empire, most notably at Pompei. Like i said above, there is almost nothing original about Jesus or his story, it is just a recycling of previous myths which have existed for thousands of years. How would you explain that away? coincidence? The devil? :curious:



    I notice you keep talking about these historians, yet you never mention them. :holmes: Perhaps you could provide archaeologists who say Exodus happened, who have dug more intensely or widely, or have had more of a motivation than their Israeli counterparts who concluded it's probably all a myth, a fabrication.? I don't think you can.



    Personal interaction with the christian god you believe in is rubbished by the fact that if you were born in India/Saudi/Olympian Greece/Rome/Persia etc..etc.. Or any other land which worshipped any other of the 30,000 dieties which have been worshipped throughout history. You would be praying and talking to that interpretatioon of God.

    Doesn't that fact devalue your relationship with the christian god? Or maybe bring into question whether it is all an illusion?
    Well I asked that many times and always ended up concluding the contrary. If you want information and counter arguments .....etc browse happily through this.

    No I don't believe I'd feel the same. I'll be be just like culture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yes,, but we know that is not going to happen. They are not going to be abstinent. But instead of compensating for this, the benevolent and loving church makes it a thousands times worse by preaching that condoms are evil and spread aids. A complete falsity. Not a very good argument for religion preventing death is it. They are so caught up in their own dogma, they don't see how their words and policies result in millions of deaths. In places like Cameroon, people have limited access to information. The dogmatic misinformation and propaganda from the Catholic Church may be the only AIDS education these people get.

    They are victims of a bad combination of blind faith and blind dogmatism.

    I also notice you didn't adress my points on the huge ring of peadophiles which exists within the catholic church.



    Another baseless assumption. I would say the complete opposite. And obviously i don't need evidence because you do not use any. A survey of 32,000 people as to whether they think christians give money is not evidence by the way. And it's rather amusing that you would even consider it so.



    You do know that arguing your points without knowing what you are talking about will eventually make you look like a complete idiot? Obviously not.

    You realise that the biggest charities in the world are secular? Including the red cross, amnesty international and many others?




    No, the science argument is going knowhere for you. We cannot prove or disprove. But we can make probable and highly improbable. Your inability to accpet this simple fact goes to show how ignoratn you are willing to be.



    What and bronze age illiterate peasants do?
    The second they are unabstinent they also have the option of choosing to use condoms as well, because they have already had it. It isn't the Catholic churches job to do everything for Africa; the catholic church is already feeding them, if you really care then you are more than welcome to promote your agenda down there, they would certainly be greatful of the help.

    The survey of 32,000 people was asking them what their charitable donations were, it proves that people with faith give more than like for like people without faith. Like I said, you have to disprove this fact for your hypothosis to hold any sway. You also have to prove that a religious person is more likely to kill than a non-religious one, but you haven't... I am not just saying things, they are referenced and yours are not.



    Science doesn't show us either way, nor does it shed light on how probable or improbable it is. You are merely reading science in your favour because of what you believe, it's like me putting forward the argument that the universe is too complex and perfect not to be made by God, but you wouldn't buy that, so don't expect me to buy your crap. It isn't the big bang or God, evolution or God, or any other part of science you want to pervert towards your agenda. There cannot be any scientific information that adds or detracts from the idea of God, or does your own biasedness and reading of the information blind you that much? If you would just take your head out of Richard Dawkins crotch for five seconds you might realise how biased you are, you are basically as bad as a fundamentalist.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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