My Science Quiz Challenge

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your statements and 'challenge' makes no sense. How is it dishonest if he gives answers that are correct to the year he's in?

Are you admitting that honesty is relative to the year it is being used?

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

Yttrium said:
I was quite honest.

Relatively yes.

Were you truthful as well?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
Are you admitting that honesty is relative to the year it is being used?

What does this have to do with anything? Scientific facts change yearly, either in minor ways or major ways; that's a fact of it. But we know that offends you.

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
Are you admitting that honesty is relative to the year it is being used?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Scientific facts change yearly, either in minor ways or major ways; that's a fact of it.

What does science have to do with honesty?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
What does science have to do with honesty?

Because knowing you, this is obviously about science to any insane degree because why else would you post it in the sciences forum? Let alone because of your personal tagline, and how any 'challenge' post you make is some dig at an aspect of science you find religiously offensive.

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

Well, folks.

Now you know why I called this a challenge.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
Well, folks.

Now you know why I called this a challenge.

It's a challenge to get you to answer a straight question.

It's obvious to anyone that this is about science and how scientific facts change each year, but since you're so so focused on worshiping the King James Bible, then obviously anything that changes is inherently a bad thing to you because you feel that you've got THE Bible, even though it's one of hundreds.

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's a challenge to get you to answer a straight question.

It's obvious to anyone that this is about science and how scientific facts change each year, but since you're so so focused on worshiping the King James Bible, then obviously anything that changes is inherently a bad thing to you because you feel that you've got THE Bible, even though it's one of hundreds.

I'll admit there's one thing that doesn't change in today's science:

It's interpretation of all that's holy.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
I'll admit there's one thing that doesn't change in today's science:

It's interpretation of all that's holy.

Science doesn't have any 'interpretation' of what's holy or not.

But let's speak of honesty: is it honesty when a man says that God created the world 6000 years ago and yet embedded it with billions of years that did not exist or happen, thus meaning that anything that can be called 'history' would thus be fraudulent and fake?

Yttrium · Jun 26, 2026

AV1611VET said:
Relatively yes.

Were you truthful as well?

Why, certainly.
if I went to the year 2000 and someone asked me what year it is, I would honestly answer that it's the year 2000. Not 2026. 2000 would be the current year.
If somebody asked me who the president is, I would honestly answer bill Clinton. Not Donald Trump.
If somebody asked me if Oakland, California had a NFL team, I would honestly say yes. The Raiders were there at the time.
If somebody asked me if there were 118 elements in the periodic table, I would honestly say no. The periodic table did not contain that many elements at the time.
If somebody asked me to list the planets, I would honestly list nine of them, not eight. There were nine celestial bodies in the solar system designated as planets at the time. And Pluto was beyond the orbit of Neptune at the time.

AV1611VET · Jun 26, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Science doesn't have any 'interpretation' of what's holy or not.

But let's speak of honesty: is it honesty when a man says that God created the world 6000 years ago and yet embedded it with billions of years that did not exist or happen, thus meaning that anything that can be called 'history' would thus be fraudulent and fake?

No, it is not honesty.

That's why He left the history out.

Only science tries to put it in.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Saturday at 11:27 AM

AV1611VET said:
No, it is not honesty.

At least you admit. And no, I will not accept your "But" answer because it's still duplicity.

Lost4words · Saturday at 12:57 PM

Woof!

AV1611VET · Saturday at 1:47 PM

Lost4words said:
Woof!

A+

VirOptimus · Tuesday at 7:42 AM

What a fail of an op.

Does not understand science or the scientific method at all. F-

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 7:54 AM

AV1611VET said:
You're sent back to 2000 without loss of knowledge and are in a classroom facing this test.

And you are told by your instructor to answer the questions truthfully and to the best of your knowledge:

1. Name the planets in order from the sun.
2. There are 118 elements on the periodic table. True or False?
3. Taking megadoses of vitamins reduces stress. True or False?
4. What percentage of our brain do we use?
5. Birds are a separate group of animals. True or False?

Here's the challenge:

If you answered truthfully and honestly, what grade would you expect the instructor to give you?

My apologies AV, but what kind of challenge is this quiz supposed to be? Is it supposed to assess the extent to which I realize and acknowledge that the various Sciences trade in provisional truth claims?

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 8:15 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
My apologies AV, what kind of challenge is this quiz supposed to be? Is it supposed to assess the extent to which I realize and acknowledge that Science trades in Provisional Truth Claims?

It's meant to show a disconnect between honesty and truthfulness in science over time.

For instance:

3. Taking megadoses of vitamins reduces stress. True or False?

If you answered TRUE in 2000, that would be considered true and honest.

But if you answered TRUE in 2000 -- knowing what you know today -- it would be considered true by the grader of the test, but would be dishonest, since you know that's not the correct answer.

Thus you would have to make a decision:

Do I answer these questions dishonestly so I can get an A?

Or do I answer these question truthfully and take an F?

Now -- lets assume today I ask a physicist if Jesus walked on water?

After he's done laughing at me and wanting to know who Jesus is (or was), he can do one of two things:

He can give me a mini lecture on buoyancy laws and hope I apply them to this Jesus I'm talking about.

Or He can just tell me I'm a crackpot and he isn't going to waste his time pwning religious ideas with solid science.

In his mind, he's being honest and truthful.

But in reality, he's honest, but not truthful.

What is considered true today, can be considered false tomorrow.

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 8:20 AM

AV1611VET said:
It's meant to show a disconnect between honesty and truthfulness in science over time.

For instance:

3. Taking megadoses of vitamins reduces stress. True or False?

If you answered TRUE in 2000, that would be considered true and honest.

But if you answered TRUE in 2000 -- knowing what you know today -- it would be considered true by the grader of the test, but would be dishonest, since you know that's not the correct answer.

Thus you would have to make a decision:

Do I answer these questions dishonestly so I can get an A?

Or do I answer these question truthfully and take an F?

Now -- lets assume today I ask a physicist if Jesus walked on water?

After he's done laughing at me and wanting to know who Jesus is (or was), he can do one of two things:

He can give me a mini lecture on buoyancy laws and hope I apply them to this Jesus I'm talking about.

Or He can just tell me I'm a crackpot and he isn't going to waste his time pwning religious ideas with solid science.

In his mind, he's being honest and truthful.

But in reality, he's honest, but not truthful.

And from where are you deriving your assumed educational and logical criteria for making these assessments?

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 8:23 AM

AV1611VET said:
It's meant to show a disconnect between honesty and truthfulness in science over time.

For instance:

3. Taking megadoses of vitamins reduces stress. True or False?

If you answered TRUE in 2000, that would be considered true and honest.

But if you answered TRUE in 2000 -- knowing what you know today -- it would be considered true by the grader of the test, but would be dishonest, since you know that's not the correct answer.

Thus you would have to make a decision:

Do I answer these questions dishonestly so I can get an A?

Or do I answer these question truthfully and take an F?

Now -- lets assume today I ask a physicist if Jesus walked on water?

After he's done laughing at me and wanting to know who Jesus is (or was), he can do one of two things:

He can give me a mini lecture on buoyancy laws and hope I apply them to this Jesus I'm talking about.

Or He can just tell me I'm a crackpot and he isn't going to waste his time pwning religious ideas with solid science.

In his mind, he's being honest and truthful.

But in reality, he's honest, but not truthful.

What is considered true today, can be considered false tomorrow.

Secondly, it's a non sequitur to assume that each and every physicist out there will laugh at you when you propose that 'Jesus walked on water.'

Why contextualize your statement about any physicist's assumptions in an open and universal way? Surely you don't think that all physicists assume what you assume they will for the exact reasons that you think they will, right?

Stopped_lurking · Tuesday at 8:26 AM

AV1611VET said:
It's meant to show a disconnect between honesty and truthfulness in science over time.

For instance:

3. Taking megadoses of vitamins reduces stress. True or False?

If you answered TRUE in 2000, that would be considered true and honest.

But if you answered TRUE in 2000 -- knowing what you know today -- it would be considered true by the grader of the test, but would be dishonest, since you know that's not the correct answer.

Thus you would have to make a decision:

Do I answer these questions dishonestly so I can get an A?

Or do I answer these question truthfully and take an F?

Now -- lets assume today I ask a physicist if Jesus walked on water?

After he's done laughing at me and wanting to know who Jesus is (or was), he can do one of two things:

He can give me a mini lecture on buoyancy laws and hope I apply them to this Jesus I'm talking about.

Or He can just tell me I'm a crackpot and he isn't going to waste his time pwning religious ideas with solid science.

In his mind, he's being honest and truthful.

But in reality, he's honest, but not truthful.

What is considered true today, can be considered false tomorrow.

Why not just state that you are responding to the questions as you understand that science viewed them in 2000? Then there is no dishonesty.

My Science Quiz Challenge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Mad Scientist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Jesus I Trust In You

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

As I figure it, what comes around....

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

As I figure it, what comes around....

As I figure it, what comes around....

Well-Known Member

Similar threads