What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
167 Comments
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I thought I was going to feel very stupid after reading the quiz, but I was able to answer most of them without a problem
- kevogod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+220/10
God, I need to go back to Bible School. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Exactly, a lot of these "facts" are not well proven."
Like what?
"I don't accept that the earth is that old so I don't have to know that something involves billions of years. I also don't accept the origin of the species as a book of science so I don't need to know that either. I don't know why people call things that are unprovable and wild theories as science."
You are a moron. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The earth's age is provable. And theory of evolution supported by countless tomes of data have a lot more weight than another book that I will not mention, except to say there is probably not one provable fact in its many pages ;)
- hafetysazard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18In regards to question #6: When I was in the 7th grade the classed was asked that question, and I replied with an answer along those lines. I was told I was wrong. The teacher's explanation was: "The water reflects back into the sky." I have nothing but distrust towards the school board anymore.
- AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18MrASSMAN;
You are still young and in school. Yes these answers should be pretty common knowledge, but wait until you are out of school for a while and not applying any of these things to your everyday life and see how well you remember them. Some people have better memories than others. It doesn't necessarily make anyone dumb if they don't know these answers, they just might not do too well in games of Trivia. It's like very computer literate people calling someone dumb because they know nothing about computers. Different people can know different subjects better than others, not everyone is a science or history person. - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I missed two questions, but got the bonus question.
I had no clue the oldest fossils where 3.8 billion years old, WOW! - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Virii?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus - asteron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Anyone else spot the error in number 5? The earth actually spins on its axis once every 23 hour 56 minutes. 24 hours is the time it takes for the sun to reach the same position in the sky. The difference is because in the period of a year the sun makes one apparent orbit around the earth. The earth spins 366 times in a year with respect to the stars.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Well done, you've parroted what your parents have told you very well.
- losvedir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12This is your third comment so far that I've read, thegsa. Don't capitalize every word! It just makes it weird to look at and slightly harder to read.
- thelastknowngod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13what exactly would you consider science if not a theory written by someone? this is all part of what has made us all. its how were all here. thinking that humans just blinked into existence one day is naive and foolish.
comments like this are sound like a smart ass 15 year old with an elitist attitude - djhifisi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@ogletree - hahahahahaha. 'I don't accept blah blah so I don't have to know that.' So - just because something doesn't fit your ideology you choose not to believe it? Real smart..
- liava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I wasn't impressed with a couple of them. I knew all the answers (well, I knew that Earth was about 3/4 covered in water; I didn't know it was 71%, and I didn't know that fossils were found 3.8 billion years ago; I just knew it was between 3 and 4 billion years), but, for example, the question of why it's hard to treat bacteria and virii doesn't have a single answer. There are a lot of answers, including the one they gave (mutation of the parasite's DNA). The most important one to me is that it's very hard to kill parasites because they are living, just like the host. It's hard to kill one without the other. We could kill any pathogen simply by heating it until its proteins are denatured. The host probably wouldn't appreciate that, though.
- karel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10When it comes to teaching evolution I tell my students that if they believe in creationism they should learn what the theory states and how it is supported so they can at least critique it in an intelligent manner.
- bonzai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15It's important because that's how old the oldest fossils really are. That isn't a political opinion that's just what it is. Kids should know these things.
I'm sorry your parents ***** your mind up but it's not too late to learn what the facts are. - vonskippy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12And yet in 300 years religion (of any flavor) is still a myth. So what's better, science which is refined over time by reproducible experiments or fairy tales that can never be proved as anything other then stories to keep bad children and weak minded adults in line? (for the religious freaks here's a hint: It's the first one).
- computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10We Need To Stop Capitalizing Every ****in Word!
- lsandberg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The point of the quiz was not only to test your knowledge of scientific fact but theory as well. Just because I'm not a biologist, doesn't mean i don't need to know about darwin's theory of evolution. Even if you don't believe that it's true it is still worthwhile knowledge because it has been changing the way scientists think about many things for the last 150 years. To deny yourself knowledge of something simply because you don't believe in it is ignorance. I don't believe in intelligent design, but i sure do know a lot about it, because it's an issue that may effect me and my children some day. And more so, even if the the theory of natural selection is some day proven to be false (highly unlikely), the origin of species would still be a scientific book because it presents a falsifiable theory based on general trends from carefully observed and documented data. Which as far as I recall is pretty much the definition of science.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"300 years ago we beleived in alchemy now we now that to be bull"
Oh we do, do we?
...
http://web.mit.edu/miwolf/Public/Web/Photos/Hack/pics/IMG_1198.JPG - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I agree with the 365 day, 24 hours one; I thought it was too easy to be the answer it is. I thought it was asking WHY the number 24 specifically was chosen, lol. Overthinking for the lose...
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I got them, 10/10 and the bonus. But I did wonder as I thought about the fossil one if the putative mars fossils, having landed on earth, might change that number. If they are fossils, of course, which is still being debated. Anyone know the age of that rock?
As for digger ogletree... a theory is not a statement of objective fact. A theory is a proposed mechanism that attempts to account for observed objective facts. In the particular case of evolution, the facts that most obviously present themselves are species and fossils. In the particular case of the earth's age, there is stellar observation of similar systems in various states of history which we think are similar to ours, there is geology as a study of what is around us, and there is chemistry and atomic theory that tell us what to expect from really old rocks and minerals.
The whole idea of a theory is that every scientist on the planet is invited to attack the theory in such a way as to *disprove* it. If they are unable to do so, then the theory stands. That's not to say that it won't be disproven tomorrow, but it *does* say that having thus far explained the objective facts, and having not been knocked down by anything that disproves them, it is either the best explanation we have, or one of the best. It is possible for there to be more than one theory, both of which account for the observed facts. Not very commonly the case, but possible. Theories also have predictive power. In other words, a theory that is correct, or mostly correct, will be able to produce predictions. For instance, various theories in chemistry and physics predicted that splitting the atom into its component parts would release very large amounts of energy. When we became able to actually spit the atom, we found that the predicted energies were released, and not only that, but in the amounts and ratios that were predicted. This kind of "predictive power" is what gives scientific theory credibility and makes it useful in day to day scientific work on other ideas. Einstein's theoretical work is constantly being re-tested, and from time to time, someone thinks up a new test, and then the theory is put up against that. So far, it has done extremely well — the results of every test thus far have been just what the theory says they should be. So we quite reasonably attach a high level of confidence to those theories. Make sense?
In the case of evolution and speciation, we can reproduce the process of evolution as described by Darwin in the laboratory. The process itself works fine, predicted results are found, etc. From here, the process may be looked at as a reasonable candidate for Evolution, which when written with the capital E, is generally accepted to be the idea that the species we see on our planet today, including us, result partially or entirely from this process. Fossils exist that show pretty much what the theory of Evolution predicts we'd find if that was the case, and that tends to raise the confidence level of those who study this pretty high. Plus we know the process itself works. Plus, because of the age we think the earth is, we think there has been a great deal of time for the process to operate. We know that it can operate very quickly when there is a lot of pressure on those things it is affecting. Deer change size by as much as 50% in just a few generations if short on space; butterflies adopt new coloration in similar time spans, very disjoint mutations pop up at rates that are highly correlated to mutagens in their environment. So the theory says, look for life forms that are part way between one species and another, so we do... and we find them. That's predictive power at work, and that's a confidence builder.
In the case of the earth's age, the supporting objective facts and theories that underlie the calculated multi-billion year age exist in very large numbers, and there is no conflicting data, so although there's some "wiggle room" of millions of years or so because these are such large numbers, this is probably one of the most reliable assertions you'll find in science. There's just too much information coming from too many directions for the planet to be any other age by more than a few percent.
The important thing to remember is that science and theory work by closing in on the right answer by constantly self-testing the ideas within science using both falsification and prediction. No idea is supposed to be so sacred as to be untestable or unmodifiable. Popularity isn't supposed to be a factor, and to science's credit, it usually isn't. This is because an idea's popularity does not affect its truth. For example, no matter how many people thought the earth was flat, it wasn't. That is why science concentrates on objective fact and not faith or belief.
My observation is that it is much, much easier to get along with the universe if your ideas can be closely matched to the objective facts that surround you. So I suggest you do a little more thinking about all this. - geeXP, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12And if you can't answer most of them, you should check out digg.com/science more often.
- blankman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10this is more like what every middle school graduate should know
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Interesting. Based on your religion and background alot of these would be considered wrong by different people.
Hey im just pointing it out. I Don't want to start a flame war or anything. - gbeirne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Christ, I've just got home from a night of drinking debauchery and that title sent me in to an infinite loop and did me no favours at all.
NOTE CAREFULLY CHILDREN: It's perfectly possible to type while inebriated. - hafetysazard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7ogletree: your method of reasoning leads me to believe you're very foolish.
- liava, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The age of man and the age of the dinosaurs are separated by several million years. Some ambiguous footprints in the mud do not dispute thousands and thousands of other pieces of evidence that show they are separated. The only people who believe the two were contemporaries have a bias that causes them to believe it. Go do some proper research and stop quoting your bible study group.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8box --> boxes
ox --> oxen
goose --> geese
moose --> moose
? --> ?!?! - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9i have found that school often dumbs you down as much as it smartens you up.
i've had arguments with teachers after they told me i was wrong to the point where the only way to shut them up was to show them research proving my point. then they just nod it off like its unimportant and give you some extra credit. - genericface, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Question number 4: "What is Darwin's origin of the species?"
Was it really a theory about the origin? That seems to be the one thing missed in his book, it only talks about the evolution. Wouldn't the appropriate question be: "What was Darwin's thesis presented in the Origin of Species?" - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6+1 for spelling "inebriated" while inebriated.
- liava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The interesting bit is that they have tried to standardize on a metric system for time where there were ten hours in a day or something like that. I think the idea was to change the length of a second so there were 100,000 in a day and then do something like 100 seconds/minute * 100 minutes/hour * 10 hours/day = 100,000 seconds per day (currently, there are 86,400, so the second wouldn't change much). The effort obviously failed.
- RandomC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Don't be absurd. I would hardly consider someone knowing these facts "overeducated" -- I'd be more inclined to call them "average". Issues of spelling leading to virii and lo(o)se, while annoying, are far less important than knowing a rainbow isn't created by fairies, the sky isn't blue "just because", the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, and that the life that exists today isn't the direct product of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Of course if you plan to be Pat Robertson's copy editor, studying the lose/loose issue might be more productive. But ideally you'd just find a cliff to wander off. - Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"In high schools, only 60 percent of students complete a general biology class, while only 40 percent complete a general chemistry class and a scant 27 percent complete a physics class, according to the National Center for Education Statistics."
Those statistics are really disturbing to me. How can you spend four years in school without taking Biology, Physics, or Chem? - Reap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Why does a year consist of 365 days, and a day of 24 hours?" seemed WAY to easy, I thought they were asking for an actual mathematical answer... o.0
Also, "What is it that makes diseases caused by viruses and bacteria hard to treat?" could have many different answers, though addmittedly the mutation one is probably the least complicated - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I agree whole-heartedly. Science begs to be both disproved and substantiated, because the ultimate goal is truth and fact. To stand steadfast in one's assertions in the face of myriad data to the contrary is ridiculous.
- Kallahan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A key component of science is falsifiability, if it can't be proven wrong, I.E. the existence of God, its not science. By your reasoning everything that scientists consider as science, you don't.
- hafetysazard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Are you sure you said what you meant to say?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's kinda funny, because the oldest fossil question is also the only one I got wrong. Seems not too many people know the answer to that. My own excuse is I think paleontology is incredibly *boring*. :)
- abbott75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Can't say I believed in much 300 years ago...
- rideagain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@iknezek:
In that case, your teacher was correct: sqrt(4) is 2, not +/- 2. That's because the square root of x is defined that way: "the non-negative number whose square is x".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Root - liava, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Um, none of the facts in that list are disputed by anyone (intelligent). Some of the questions can have multiple answers (see my other response), but not one of them can be factually debated. One's religion has nothing to do with any of these facts, and, if a religion disagrees with any of them (I can't think of any that does), then the religion is almost certainly wrong.
- geeXP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Some extra Wiki Knowledge to accompany this article:
Why do we spread salt on ice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_removal
What makes the seasons change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasons
Virii - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
Why is the sky blue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky - newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ Rickler
it's "unless you're a grammar Nazi" - keithharrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ah, if only comments could rise to the top such as dugg stories. I might have to have a little chat with Kevin about that. :)
Anyway, very well said and I find it truly sad that so many people have a hard time comprehending those basic concepts about science.
Religion may be good for the soul, but does little help for the mind. - baudbwoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6man I really have to work on this self esteem thing, I thought this going to make me look like an idiot...I got two wrong. Two wrong, my god man, you really need brush up on your science.
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Besides, there is only one SCIENTIFIC theory for how life developed over time - Evolution.
- bigGdelta1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Origin of Species not important? Ok, you get penicillin for that necrotizing staph infection and if bird flu becomes a pandemic then you just get whatever old flu vaccine is lying around. My mother almost died a year or so back after picking up a vancomycin resistent strain of staph while undergoing chemo.
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I disagree. I think it's better to take the standard science - in this case Evolution - study that, AND if you find something not quite right with it, THEN investigate other theories.
Otherwise, you'd be spending all your time comparing and contrasting all the different religions and theories out there on everything wouldn't you? -
Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 