Haha yea. Where are ya going again? (you're a seinor, right?)
yup, a senior.. I'm going to rice university in houston (hopefully).. We are still waiting for our financial aid packet, and if it's too expensive I'll have to go to the university of texas @ austin.. I have around 47 hours of college credit through dual credit, and if I went to UT I would be a sophomore in college already.. Rice doesn't accept any dual credit:(
Medicine for me as well. :)
Except, Duke's my college of choice.
Duke is an awesome school. Best of luck to you.
I went to a conference about universities yesterday.
In the uk we have school (4.5/5 to 16) then you are free to leave and get a job or else go to 6th form college (16 - 18/19). After that you can go to uni for x years.
I want to do computer science/networking/web development degree at uni?
Any thaughts? Im ok at maths (i do chemistry and computing at college right now and that maths is fine) but could be better.
I went to a conference about universities yesterday.
In the uk we have school (4.5/5 to 16) then you are free to leave and get a job or else go to 6th form college (16 - 18/19). After that you can go to uni for x years.
I want to do computer science/networking/web development degree at uni?
Any thaughts? Im ok at maths (i do chemistry and computing at college right now and that maths is fine) but could be better.
Oh wow, your educational programs seem quite different from ours.. How many universities do you have ? What courses are taught in your '6th form college'?
I think you'll be fine.. Comp. sci. majors usually require mostly math and a little programming.. I'd say calc 3 or differentials is the highest math course that you would need to take.. What programming language do you like most? I don't really know what the dominate programming language is, but I'd say it is c++ (java is becoming the most popular, though).
After school (16) you get GCSE's in maths,english,science and some optional subjects. If you stay in education and go to 6th form you get A levels in 4/5 subjects.
An "a" level is an AS+ an A2 by the way. there one year each. you have to do the as to be able to do the a2 but thats ok as an AS is a qualification itself enabling you to drop it and switch subjects for the second year.
Im debating dropping chemistry next year and doing a 1 year course in maths, might help my uni application....
In the UK there are quite alot of different unis (and the system varies between N.I , england , scotland and wales) but essentially theres the good, well known ones then the new ones that used to be tech colleges (founded circa 1960s) that dont have such a good reputation.
Im ok at maths (only got B at GCSE) thats why i want to go the web devel route at uni instead of plain computer science.
Most unis teach C#, java and PHP btw
After school (16) you get GCSE's in maths,english,science and some optional subjects. If you stay in education and go to 6th form you get A levels in 4/5 subjects.
An "a" level is an AS+ an A2 by the way. there one year each. you have to do the as to be able to do the a2 but thats ok as an AS is a qualification itself enabling you to drop it and switch subjects for the second year.
haha.. okay.. I have no idea what that means
The U.S. divides education into grade school, high school, and college. Grade school consists of elementary and middle school (Grades Pre-k -> 8th) Then High School is 9th -> 12th.. You're usually 18 after you graduate high school, and you can choose to attend college (provided that you are accepted, and can actually afford it).. In college you can finally choose to major in some field, and you no longer have to take all the core classes (english, history, math, science).
Alright, I've moved the discussion about colleges and the like here:
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread76066.html
Yeah, this thread has gotten off topic. ^.~
Somebody should ask a question to get us back on subject.
Yeah, this thread has gotten off topic. ^.~
Somebody should ask a question to get us back on subject.
OK... You asked for it! :icon_twisted:
How can any supposedly intelligent person think that dinos and man ever coexisted?
There, that should get the ball roiling again...
OK... You asked for it! :icon_twisted:
How can any supposedly intelligent person think that dinos and man ever coexisted?
There, that should get the ball roiling again...
lol.. Well, I tried to show them the error of their ways..
OK... You asked for it! :icon_twisted:
How can any supposedly intelligent person think that dinos and man ever coexisted?
There, that should get the ball roiling again...
Well first of all, I'm not intelligent. I mean I'm smart, but that doesn't mean I know everything. I basically go by the Bible and what it says, it's my truth. But to show that I'm not trusting solely by faith, there's a lot of history and archaeology to back it up. I don't want to get back into the "bible isn't fact" part... I've already heard everything about that. But yeah, I think that question you asked has already been answered over and over again. Maybe it was just an attack against me? I don't know.
Walt, you may not agree with her point fo view, but i dont think personal attacks are nececerarry
lol.. Well, I tried to show them the error of their ways..
But I don't agree completely with you, either... The arguments are on complete opposite sides of the fence, and there is a middle ground that is probably much closer to the truth.
Well first of all, I'm not intelligent. I mean I'm smart, but that doesn't mean I know everything.
Being intelligent and knowing everything are not the same thing. You, my dear, strike me as quite intelligent.
I basically go by the Bible and what it says, it's my truth. But to show that I'm not trusting solely by faith, there's a lot of history and archaeology to back it up.
Yes there is quite a bit of archaeology, history, and science to back up much of the Bible. But not all. That does not mean the rest is complete irrevocable fact. IMO much of the Bible is a philosophy of life and is not intended to be taken literally in all cases. Especially if you have to make up stuff to prove a point -- like dinosaurs and Job, and cedar tree tails. That was all a circular argument with the proof being only conjecture.
I don't want to get back into the "bible isn't fact" part... I've already heard everything about that. But yeah, I think that question you asked has already been answered over and over again. Maybe it was just an attack against me? I don't know.
Not really an attack, more tongue-in-cheek. I know where you stand and I cannot understand how someone can claim proven scientific fact is false just because a book seems to contradict it. IMO, the Bible and science are not really at odds. The Bible is written to be interpreted. It was written by and for people that had limited knowledge in the true makeup of the universe, so they did the best they could with what they could understand. Now that we know a smidgen more than they did about the universe, we can reinterpret the words to still be true in faith, but without contradicting the facts of science.
But I don't agree completely with you, either... The arguments are on complete opposite sides of the fence, and there is a middle ground that is probably much closer to the truth.
There wasn't one argument I made that was not backed up by science and extensive testing..
Not really an attack, more tongue-in-cheek. I know where you stand and I cannot understand how someone can claim proven scientific fact is false just because a book seems to contradict it. IMO, the Bible and science are not really at odds. The Bible is written to be interpreted. It was written by and for people that had limited knowledge in the true makeup of the universe, so they did the best they could with what they could understand. Now that we know a smidgen more than they did about the universe, we can reinterpret the words to still be true in faith, but without contradicting the facts of science.
I agree, the people who wrote the bible did not know as much about the universe as we do now. Many of the stories told in the bible are simply ways in which they describe what they cannot explain... the stories aren't necessarily true, but the point they are trying to convey is true. (Well, depending on your religious views)
And again, you don't have to be against science if you are religious.. Many scientific theories are backed by the Christian community.. And as I proved earlier, the majority of the Christian faith do NOT take the bible literally..
Being intelligent and knowing everything are not the same thing. You, my dear, strike me as quite intelligent.
Thanks, but I just think I have so much more to learn... I don't consider myself intelligent. Everyone here is smarter than me I think.
Not really an attack, more tongue-in-cheek. I know where you stand and I cannot understand how someone can claim proven scientific fact is false just because a book seems to contradict it. IMO, the Bible and science are not really at odds. The Bible is written to be interpreted. It was written by and for people that had limited knowledge in the true makeup of the universe, so they did the best they could with what they could understand. Now that we know a smidgen more than they did about the universe, we can reinterpret the words to still be true in faith, but without contradicting the facts of science.
Ok.
I agree, the people who wrote the bible did not know as much about the universe as we do now. Many of the stories told in the bible are simply ways in which they describe what they cannot explain... the stories aren't necessarily true, but the point they are trying to convey is true. (Well, depending on your religious views)
And again, you don't have to be against science if you are religious.. Many scientific theories are backed by the Christian community.. And as I proved earlier, the majority of the Christian faith do NOT take the bible literally..
I don't disagree with science at all. I believe it's a very interesting and wonderful thing, but I also think that not everything is true, the same way you believe the bible is not literal. (The only percentage of Christians that don't believe in the Bible are the Catholics, as you claim. Hence, everyone else [[B]Protestants[/B]] does.)
Thanks, but I just think I have so much more to learn... I don't consider myself intelligent. Everyone here is smarter than me I think.
You can't gage intellect. Theres all different kinds.. street smarts, book smarts, etc..
I also think you're intelligent.. Every1 who uses daniweb is intelligent, of course!:) (And any1 who can actively participate in this debate w/ an open mind)
There is tons to learn.. no1 has ever even come close to learning everything..
You can't gage intellect. Theres all different kinds.. street smarts, book smarts, etc..
I also think you're intelligent.. Every1 who uses daniweb is intelligent, of course!:) (And any1 who can actively participate in this debate w/ an open mind)
There is tons to learn.. no1 has ever even come close to learning everything..
Yes, that is true. ^.^
I don't disagree with science at all. I believe it's a very interesting and wonderful thing, but I also think that not everything is true, the same way you believe the bible is not literal. (The only percentage of Christians that don't believe in the Bible are the Catholics, as you claim. Hence, everyone else [[B]Protestants[/B]] does.)
Really? Does every protestant faith take the bible literally? Post here for your views on this, b/c I could almost swear that there were many non-literal protestant faiths..
Science is the key to knowledge:)
Really? Does every protestant faith take the bible literally? Post here for your views on this, b/c I could almost swear that there were many non-literal protestant faiths..
Science is the key to knowledge:)
Ok, I am 98% sure that all Protestants believe the Bible as literal. I mean, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Assembly of God/Church of God, Adventist do believe this. But, they also translate scriptures differently. That's why there's so many branches.
I never quite understood all the different sects of christianity.. What is the difference btwn your religion (pentecostal, right?) and all the other protestants?
I never quite understood all the different sects of christianity.. What is the difference btwn your religion (pentecostal, right?) and all the other protestants?
Well, it's quite complicated. But one of the biggest things is our view on the Holy Spirit. Other differences would be found in the way we worship.. for example, our church is very contemporary and "free," but the Methodists are very still, and they sing songs only out of the hymnal. Their worship is quiet, our worship is enthusiastic. Some people call it 'dead,' I just call it boring.
Ok, I am 98% sure that all Protestants believe the Bible as literal. I mean, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Assembly of God/Church of God, Adventist do believe this. But, they also translate scriptures differently. That's why there's so many branches.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think so. One such example of this is the Lutheran belief of transubstantiation.
On this idea, Catholics actually take the literal belief, that we literally are eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutherans, and most other Protestant denominations believe the blood and wine to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think so. One such example of this is the Lutheran belief of transubstantiation.
On this idea, Catholics actually take the literal belief, that we literally are eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutherans, and most other Protestant denominations believe the blood and wine to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Yes. That is true. We have communion to represent his blood and body. I meant in the Bible, we take things literally.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think so. One such example of this is the Lutheran belief of transubstantiation.
On this idea, Catholics actually take the literal belief, that we literally are eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutherans, and most other Protestant denominations believe the blood and wine to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Yea, I'm quite sure only the catholics believe that they are actually receiving the body and blood of christ (which is completely ridiculous)... The protestants only believe it is symbolic..
Oh and btw, if the catholics are right.. jesus tastes pretty damn good lol:D
Check out these pictures, here and here!
There wasn't one argument I made that was not backed up by science and extensive testing..
The biggest thing I was annoyed at with your arguments was you simply stated a view and never backed up what you said with any facts and didn't point to any references as Christina did. Therefore, most of your arguments were void. You need to back up what you say, you can't just say it simply because you heard it somewhere. Prove it!
Thanks, but I just think I have so much more to learn...
You're welcome. And of course you do. You're 18. I'm much older and still have a lot to learn. Intelligence is not how much you know but how well you use what you already know. And this you do quite well.
I don't disagree with science at all.
Yes you do. Any scientific evidence that is at odds with a strict interpretation of the Bible you claim is false. That is a disagreement. If science contradicts the Bible, rather than looking at how to reinterpret the Scriptures to include the new information, you simply dismiss the information as bogus. It's a lot like the Warren Commission.
(The only percentage of Christians that don't believe in the Bible are the Catholics, as you claim. Hence, everyone else [[B]Protestants[/B]] does.)
Ok, I am 98% sure that all Protestants believe the Bible as literal. I mean, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian, Pentecostals, Assembly of God/Church of God, Adventist do believe this. But, they also translate scriptures differently. That's why there's so many branches.
Please substantiate this. I completely disagree. Most Protestants I know do not take the bible literally. I was Episcopalian and Methodist, and I know they are not literal interpretors. And as proof, I'll simply point out how many Protestant sects there are. They can't ALL be interpreting the Bible literally if they ALL believe something different.
I know for an absolute fact that UCC does not believe this. Are they not Protestant? (Actual question. I always thought any Christian sect that was not Catholic is Protestant. This may not be true, I suppose.)
They all use the King James Bible, don't they? Therefore the scriptures are all translated exactly the same. The Bible is supposed to be Truth. You can't reinterpret Truth. It's absolute. Therefore, if there is an alternate belief, the Bible is not being taken literally, it's being interpreted to fit their religion. Therefore, logic dictates they do not adhere to strict interpretation.
Oh and btw, if the catholics are right.. jesus tastes pretty damn good lol:D
Oh, I don't know about that. He either needs salt or peanut butter. I find the wafers pretty tasteless.
Christina, No way in hell do 98% of protestants believe in the bible literally.
The biggest thing I was annoyed at with your arguments was you simply stated a view and never backed up what you said with any facts and didn't point to any references as Christina did. Therefore, most of your arguments were void. You need to back up what you say, you can't just say it simply because you heard it somewhere. Prove it!
yea, yea.. It's true that I don't back much of what I say up.. I'm too damn lazy to search online for information.. But EVERYTHING I said was correct.. You can go look it up if you like..
Oh, I don't know about that. He either needs salt or peanut butter. I find the wafers pretty tasteless.
His body is kinda bland, but his blood tastes awesome! It may be illegal for anyone <21 yrs of age to consume alcohol, but if you do it whilst in a church then its perfectly ok!
Really, do you have to be 21 to drink in the US?
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.