kirbybeam

So is your entire point of coming back to Tip.it to try and discredit Christianity? Do you seriously think this quiz tries to discredit Christianity?

alright, want to take a real quiz? http://exchristian.net/1/ You can actually get answers correct in that one.

http://exchristian.net/3/test_quiz.php post your score... I got 7/20

Not every religion is exclusive. Buddhists don't go around condemning non-Buddhists. Muslims say that some Jews and Christians can still go to heaven. Jews? They say as long as gentiles follow the 7 Noahide laws they should be ok. Hindus? There's more than one way to worship God, through all of his avatars. The only religion that's exclusive is Christianity. So... please don't try to pretend that all religions are the same, when they are clearly not.

Giving this yet another bump 8)

Thank you. Just because they match up with the time of their writing doesn't mean that we know who wrote it. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html And, quite frankly, I don't care if you believe in Christianity based on faith. That's nice to know that you don't critically examine your beliefs, and instead are content with wishful thinking. See above quote. See above quote. That's nice that you know some people, but that is totally subjective. Do you have any factual evidence, or are you going to take this up on faith too? :roll: And if you can read between the lines, I'm actually talking about Christianity, and not religion in general. No it does not. That only applies to Christianity. Again, see above quote. It doesn't prove religion wrong, but it certainly proves that the Bible cannot be taken literally. What the hell? Science is naturalistic, theology is NOT naturalistic at all. There is a big difference. And like I said, the goal of science isn't to explain reality as it actually is, it is to explain reality from our viewpoint. And, I am not bashing "theism". I believe in God. I am a rationalist transcendentalist Muslim, thank you very much. Science does not say that it knows for sure. But your religion does. That is the fundamental difference. Science always corrects itself. Your religion? There are still Christians who believe the earth is flat, and they cite the Bible as evidence. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Again, I refer you to my quote above. You are joking right? Songs? I measure the length of my table with a rule, it is 3 feet and 6 inches. Now, if someone writes a song about my table being 4 feet, that isn't the same damn thing. And, what do you mean by "creationism" in the broadest sense? EVERY culture has its own creation myth, and they are all conflicting. Plus. that doesn't matter. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. I haven't bashed theism, only Protestant Christianity. It doesn't condemn all of them, just some. And, that's what makes draws me away from the Bible, it's disgusting with its descriptions. People eating their own dung? Lot copulating with his own daughters after making them intoxicated? Jesus saying to pluck out your own eyes? Talking about how a woman's private parts taste like wine? No thanks, I'll pass. First off, I disagree that those people you named were very sinful. Second, God blesses them because they worshipped Him and devoted their lives to Him. No I wouldn't; instead, I'd challenge you and reveal your falsehood.

Would you mind telling me what that is? I can't seem to get the Scanner class working...

THat only took me at least maybe 5 minutes... what percent of my life was that? more like 0.00000000000003%.

Because when matter becomes so dense then the laws of physics break down. No, but that doesn't matter. I wasn't there when Rome fell, but I still know about it. All of them. Because the universe is expanding, and thus if we look backwards it is contracting, and that means that there was a beginning. You are right. But the thing is, these models work, that's why we use them. The goal of science is not to find out how the universe actually works, just how it appears to work to us. This is analogous to an unopenable pocke[bleep]ch. We can see the hands moving, but we can't open the thing and look inside. That's why we create models of what could be inside the watch (which accounts for the movement of the hands). In the same way, we look at the universe, create laws that we think that the universe follows, but will we ever know the actual thing? No way. I agree. But that's not true for just physics, but for every topic. Exactly.

I had no idea I would receive so much opposition for such a basic proposition. Someone made the erroneous claim that Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I corrected them. In any case, I'm not going to argue this in this thread anymore; if you have a problem, then send me a private message. Generalized applications The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momentum. In its general form, it applies to every pair of conjugate variables. An example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular momentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. In general, and unlike the case of position versus momentum discussed above, the lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables depends on the system state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertaint ... plications mass and time are a pair of conjugate variables. I'm not sure how you reason this. All it states is that the more we know about the amount of energy involved, the less we know about the time it took for the energy to appear and disappear. I don't understand what you are saying here at all. Seeing as how the laws of physics did (do?) not apply at t=0 (the beginning of the universe), I fail to see how you connect these two.

bump from second page again! :P

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you. If you had cared to read, this particular train of thought was because of your overuse of the rolleye smileys, which lead people to think that you think this is "standard knowledge" for the 16 year old. It should be "standard knowledge" for those who claim I don't know what I am talking about. I know people who are legitimately against Quantum Physics (seeing as how Einstein himself was at odds with it) That's what I assumed his position was. I guess I was wrong. It isn't my fault, it was his, because he stated: He brought up the Uncertainty Principle, is it MY fault that he wasn't familiar with it? :roll:

Well, it's hard to tell these days. :? Anyways... I'm not sure how much more to explain. all I'm saying is that subatomic particles pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle. Because the uncertainty principle is not just about location and acceleration; it is also about time and energy. That is, the more that is known about the time, the less there is known about the energy. That's why in VERY short time spans (like one billionth of a billionth of a second), energy suddenly comes and dissipates for no reason.

Actually it does. It means you are being a jerk. Just admit that you were wrong already instead of blaming me for knowing more than you.

I'm 16 years old. And quite frankly, if you are going to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, then you damn well better know the material you claim I don't know. It's not my fault that some people are snobs that can't accept new information.

Wow, that is the same situation I am in. My class is going slow... and I've been taking cs for 3 months. And we use the same projects, books, and classes as you... Are you in my class? That program is pretty good considering you only did this for 3 months. lol... California High School?

Even so, I am being much more patient than my opposition. That's all I'm striving for, I don't need to go farther than that. Argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong. These "laws' are NOT absolute; perhaps that's what is causing your confusion.

The guy told me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Obviously, that's means he claims he knows more about physics than I do. Thus, if he cannot understand my arguments, that's HIS problem, not mine. I gave a simple physics equation: which clearly states what I intended. As I said, it is simple. Virtual particles are being created and destroyed in a vacuum all the time, due to the uncertainty principle. If you disagree, then show me where I am wrong. On a final note, stop being so pompus (telling me to shove it up my "log factory"; I have never heard that expression used in my life). Being respectful makes you credible. Oh, and :roll:

The uncertainty principle in the form implies that in the vacuum one or more particles with energy ÃÆýâââ¬Ã

Um... Energy can be created and destroyed... Quantum Physics explains how. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it so that matter is being created and destroyed all the time.

Damn, I got: Reading: 650 Math: 670 Writing: 530 1850 :x RAWR!!! I'm taking this test again!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

:roll: Here's a tip: The cookies are laced with cyanide, and the tea is actually hydrogen peroxide mixed with dirt. Yes, this guy is evil incarnate.

LMAO, you think he was elected? Ever look at the polls? Only like 30% of the country voted in the presidential election, and he only got like 50% of the vote. But that doesn't even matter, since all of the presidential candidates were losers, and were NOT chosen by the people. But that still doesn't even matter, because the president in the Islamic Republic of Iran is just a figurehead. The real power lies in the hands of the SUPREME LEADER. The elections were a sham. Ahmadinejad won using false pretenses.

Hurting oneself is prohibited in Islam, so that extends to suicide bombings. I don't see what else there is to say.

... this doesn't sound like peace. What do you mean by that? Doing something peacefully may still require killing. Take the peace corps as an example. How do you think they decided to put the verses in? :roll: The passage is dealing with what to do when a father doesn't have any male children, and a question arises when his inheritance must be distributed. That's the only reason the ancestry of the women is shown in those verses. I'll change my stance then. I will now say that non-Israelite women had no ancestry. It isn't that much of a change though, since Moses and his posse weren't raping Israelites. Sacrificing yourself for others is a very good thing to do. Cuba had no choice. Cuba was the Soviet Union's puppet. But still, there was no formal declaration of war on either side, ever. And "oppressing" your people, in the context of this debate, is not considered war.