How science literate are you?

a reply to: Snarl

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a scientific law (and before you say it, no, a scientific theory does not become a scientific law once it's "proven").

In another thread about evolution, you said this:

And no one _ever_ has conducted a scientific experiment (much less repeated it) where a change of species is evident (e.g. breeding two dogs and coming up with a cat).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is perhaps the most pants on head ignorant interpretation of evolution I've ever seen (and not uncoincidently coming from the Creationist camp on a frequent basis) so forgive me for not taking your insights into evolution seriously.

Is question eight not wrong?

8. The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Technically don't we still live with dinosaurs, as birds are a form of dinosaur?

"The origin of birds refers to the initial stages in the evolution of birds. The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era."

I'd say fail for the test and those who think a perfect score really tells intelligence.

Cheers, Nuts.

a reply to: GetHyped

People believe, form opinions, and know. Scientists conduct experiments and provide proof. You can talk Evolution 'til you're blue in the face ... and you won't have the proof you're looking for. That's why you'll never find me far from scientific principals in discussions on evolution. I'm just there to level the playing field.

-Cheers

originally posted by: Snarl That's why you'll never find me far from scientific principals in discussions on evolution.

Dogs giving birth to cats?? Don't even pretend you're in the same book let alone on the same page of scientific principles if this is your understanding of evolution.

a reply to: Chadwickus

That quiz was so easy it hurt.

a reply to: Chadwickus
Got 10/11 because i refuse to answer question 7 the way the scientific community would expect me too.

I am truly beginning to believe that the sole purpose of these types of 'scientific ' quizzes is simply to build a smokescreen around question 7 so as to brainwash it into the unsuspecting masses. I'm sorry but this is the second quiz ive taken where a question on evolution props up in a quiz when it is not a law only a theory. Im sick and tired of these tactics.

Is anyone else still stuck on #1? Sure, molten iron is hot, but is it very hot? As in molten tungsten very hot, or Erin Grey in the third season of Buck Rogers very hot? Couldn't you also say that a huge ball of molten iron that gives us a magnetic field to repel radiation from space would be kinda cool?

I think if you get less than full marks you should have yourself admitted

I'm surprised the 72% got question 11 right; I though that would be lower. It's been my experience that people don't seem to understand probability and statistics.

For example, if I flip a coin five times an got heads all five times, I think there are many people who would say that my odds of flipping heads one additional time (a sixth time) would be less than 50-50 because I "already got heads five time in a row, and a sixth time would be pushing the odds". Of course, those people would be wrong, but that has been my experience.

Then again, the results of the quiz may be skewed by the type of person who would be more apt to take it. The people who are more likely to take this quiz may be more scientifically literate to begin with.

Here we have a quiz to see how scientifically literate people are and some people purposely answered wrong because they don't like what the answer is.

This could also pass for a reading comprehension quiz.

Only 67% of the people got it correct for the length of time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun.

Now for a brief musical interlude.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Snarl

Question time: do you accept the overwhelming body of evidence that shows evolution being the mechanism for biodiversity? If not, what exactly is your belief in this regard?

I believe that the environment is the driving force behind biodiversity. Change it enough ... you'll witness evolution. What I believe and what science can prove are two different things, rendering the argument for Evolution moot as a scientific law.

We are at a point, however, where man is capable enough to 'cause' evolution to occur. You can see this in genetically modified crops.

Yes ... and no.

Don't ever go into a cichlid forum and argue that man is capable of creating new species. You'll get your head bitten off.

If it doesn't happen naturally, it doesn't count as far as a lot of the aquarium enthusiasts are concerned. That's mainly because in the Asian and Eastern European trade there is a lot of hormonal/genetic manipulation to create hybridization and franken fish that are marketed under pseudo-scientific names to make it seem as though they are naturally occurring.

I got 4/11...dam those religious threads

a reply to: ketsuko

European trade there is a lot of hormonal/genetic manipulation to create hybridization and franken fish that are marketed under pseudo-scientific names to make it seem as though they are naturally occurring.

Pseudoscientific does not mean what you think it means also there is no dash in the spelling.

pseudoscientific
noun
-A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
adj
- based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ketsuko

European trade there is a lot of hormonal/genetic manipulation to create hybridization and franken fish that are marketed under pseudo-scientific names to make it seem as though they are naturally occurring.

Pseudoscientific does not mean what you think it means also there is no dash in the spelling.

pseudoscientific
noun
-A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
adj
- based on theories and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

Yes, it does. They are given pseudo Genus species names that make them sound as though they have been properly named and catalogued in science to fool hobbyists into buying them, but research will show there is no real foundation to the name in question.

a reply to: ketsuko

Believe what you want as you obviously are doing. It isn't debatable, but is your choice if you want to continue using terminology incorrectly.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ketsuko

Believe what you want as you obviously are doing. It isn't debatable, but is your choice if you want to continue using terminology incorrectly.

This is my dictionary,

pseudoscience - a theory, methodology or activity that appears to be or is presented as being scientific

The activity is naming the fish as though it was collected and described by science in the proper manner.

a reply to: ketsuko

As I said it isn't debatable so I will not debate this with you.

It is your choice if you want to continue using incorrect terminology.

originally posted by: IronNuts
Is question eight not wrong?

8. The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Technically don't we still live with dinosaurs, as birds are a form of dinosaur?

No. The birds evolved from dinosaurs but they are not dinosaurs anymore. They belong to a different classification.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Is anyone else still stuck on #1? Sure, molten iron is hot, but is it very hot? As in molten tungsten very hot, or Erin Grey in the third season of Buck Rogers very hot? Couldn't you also say that a huge ball of molten iron that gives us a magnetic field to repel radiation from space would be kinda cool?

Nice flyf*cking there. I'm sure if we throw you in molten iron you would say it's very hot