HARD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS (Riddles included)

Would you rather lose by 0.5, OR win by cheating?
    • Not a big deal
    • I’ll win by cheating…=(
    • I think I’ll lose by 0.5…;D

0 voters

Would you rather misclick during a game, OR make a mistake and skip over an atari?
    • Forget it! I’ll take the forfeit…wait…what?
    • Misclick please…=(
    • Last straw, mistake! But I’ll take ya…T~T

0 voters

Would you rather win a pro in go by 0.5, OR win a novice in go by 375 points?
    • AYE! Pro, 'course!
    • I like to bully novice players, lol! And it’s satisfying, too.
    • Can I skip?

0 voters

Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
  • Hmmm interesting…I believe the chicken!
  • Why do we care? As long as we have eggs and chicken meat.
  • The egg goes FIRST!
  • Where am I? Who am I? What is this?

0 voters

What solves every question?
  • The key
  • The answer
  • The fart
  • The dog poop

0 voters

Why does a firework run so fast?
  • Duh, cuz it’s butt is on fire
  • Idk
  • ??? Maybe cuz it’s made that way?

0 voters

What did the caterpillar say to her dad that made her dad faint?
  • I want new shoes
  • I wanna go on a diet
  • I wanna be rich BOIII
  • I can’t squeeze out ma poop

0 voters

What type of customer does the barber hate most?
  • The crying baby
  • The old lady
  • The bald guy
  • The…alien

0 voters

On a snowy day, a guy was found dead outside. Near his body, they only found two parallel lines going for a long distance. What/who should they look for next?
  • Da ALIEN
  • the knife
  • A guy with a wheelchair
  • A guy with a knife

0 voters

Wait, what? Dog poop solves every question? How old are you?
Oh. Username ends on 2009. Well, nevermind. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :upside_down_face:

5 Likes

Uh, are you sure? Cuz dog poop is the answer to non of the questions, lol :rofl:

1 Like

I mean for the chicken and egg one, I think God created chickens, and the chickens hatched the egg. I mean if the egg came first, there’s no chicken to hatch it! :thinking:

1 Like

But what if God didn’t create the domesticated bird we call a chicken? Maybe God created a junglefowl or some other proto-chicken. And if that’s the case, then somewhere in time you have two proto-chickens whose offspring was a true chicken. That means the egg came first.

3 Likes

Uhm… Are you serious or just trolling? :flushed:

Birds descend from dinosaurs. So, at one point, there must have been the first bird hatching from an egg lay by what was technically still a dinosaur, I guess. Althouth the lines are probably blurry and biologists might laugh at me for that idea of drawing a line there, Idk. Well, and then with birds, at some point chickens evolved, so it was another very chicken-like-but-not-yet-a-chicken bird which lay and egg, out of which came a chicken.

4 Likes

Indeed, eggs appeared around 312 million years ago, even if you only consider hard-shelled eggs to be “true” eggs. Chickens only appeared about 8 thousand years ago (domesticated red junglefowl).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

2 Likes

I’m serious, why? :no_mouth:

I guess… well… :open_mouth: :flushed: I heard that people exist who seriously believe stuff like that, but I think I never met someone in my life. And I’m almost 40. And I went to a Catholic school, but even there everyone knew about evolution etc. So this is… weird for me. A true clash of cultures, I guess.

1 Like

Birds descend from dinosaurs. So, at one point, there must have been the first bird hatching from an egg lay by what was technically still a dinosaur

Birds are dinosaurs, like humans are mammals.

Birds evolved from non-avian dinosaurs like humans evolved from non-human mammals, but birds didn’t cease to be dinosaurs any more than humans ceased to be mammals.

The dinosaurs (Dinosauria) are a clade – any animal descended from the founding species of the group will always be a dinosaur, regardless of its morphology.

The non-avian dinosaurs are a paraphyletic (exclusionary) group – the dinosaurs, but explicitly without the birds. That group could also be considered an evolutionary grade, like the reptiles (Reptilia being, famously, also paraphyletic).

Of course, this is a scientific point. I acknowledge that in popular discourse, dinosaur is usually synonymous with non-avian dinosaur; but “popular terminology” also places animals like crocodiles or tortoises into that group, which more people would find ridiculously incorrect.

4 Likes

I second this, I haven’t met a Christian in the Netherlands yet who truly believes the world is that young (although I know they exist, in villages like Staphorst and Urk and such).


I always believed “Dinosaurs” was a paraphyletic group, defined as any animal with the same common ancestor as, let’s say, the velociraptor and the triceratops, excluding the birds.

Like humans aren’t considered monkeys, or lizards, or fish.


Looking it up, seems you’re right! Didn’t expect to learn such a significant dinosaur fact after spending the first 16 years of my life believing I would become a palaeontologist.

4 Likes

I always believed “Dinosaurs” was a paraphyletic group, defined as any animal with the same common ancestor as, let’s say, the velociraptor and the triceratops, excluding the birds.

That’s a popular but incorrect belief. The group you refer to is, as said, the non-avian dinosaurs.

Like humans aren’t considered monkeys, or lizards, or fish.

The lizards sensu stricto, which is to say the squamates, are not ancestral to humans. “lizards” are a paraphyletic group, though, because snakes are excluded – the clade, Squamata, includes the snakes.

From what I can gather, there is actually technical debate currently over whether or not humans and other apes should be formally considered a species of Old World monkey – “monkeys” are usually treated paraphyletically, with the exclusion of all the apes (not just humans). The clade, which includes monkeys, apes, and humans, is Simiiformes, the simians; and more broadly the primates, including lemurs.

fish are an evolutionary grade of vertebrate, defined as "Vertebrata without Tetrapoda", the tetrapods being the land vertebrates – fish are another paraphyletic group.

1 Like

I recently learned that pterodactyls are not dinosaurs. They are a sister clade.

2 Likes

The correct technical term is actually pterosaur, of the clade Pterosauria (πτερόν–σαῦρος, the “wing lizards”).

The pterodactyls (πτερόν–δάκτυλος, the “wing-feet”) are specifically members of the genus Pterodactylus, or more broadly the suborder Pterodactyloidea (though those would perhaps be more correctly called pterodactyloids).

There are many species of pterosaur that are not pterodactyls.

Again, pterodactyl has a slightly different technical and popular meaning, and it’s not my place to tell you that the popular meaning is “wrong” – it’s just non-technical.

It’s a similar case to a correction of sabre-toothed tiger to sabre-toothed cat, as the genus Smilodon is not technically a sort of tiger, since the tigers are defined as belonging to the species Panthera tigris. The name sabre-toothed tiger is good in that in communicates the size of the animal, but technically misleading.

By the way, the clade formed by Dinosauria and Pterosauria is often called Ornithodira (ὄρνις–δειρή, the “bird-throats”).

1 Like

I recommend the podcast I Know Dino.

2 Likes

Our neighbour was a farmer who held the belief that the earth was created by God something like 8000 years ago, since that’s what he was told in church. He was also an amateur geologist, and when you’d ask how old some of his rocks were, he would answer things like this-and-that rock is 30 million years old, so-and-so rock is 20 million years old, etc.

He didn’t seem to have any problems with believing both at the same time.

8 Likes

I’ve always found it strange what the strife with the whole teaching of evolution really is about. The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with having a creator, since evolution does not say anything about how life is created, only something about how certain rules (inheritance, mutation & survival pressure) have the effect that their subjects tend to converge to optimal ‘fitness’.

It’s a process you can witness first-hand just by observing how selective breeding gives rise to diversity, or how the most successful viruses tend to be highly infectious and relatively harmless, or how certain insects are now immune to pesticides, or bacteria to antibiotics. You can even find it in dead objects, like how certain technology becomes popular and inspires similar technology, while less successful ideas tend to die out.

1 Like

Yes, these sorts of examples are everywhere.

It just adds to the remarkableness of the extent of fanatical literal belief, especially in societies where you would imagine that “good education” is available.

The Standford Uni evolution teaching notes emphasise how the lessons in evolution don’t have to be seen as contradicting the students’ religious beliefs, and encourage pointing out the different roles of science and religion.

But I guess these are west-coast liberal heresies in the US :wink:

1 Like

In the Netherlands, a majority of the population is non-religious. Conservative Evangelicals (usually called “Gereformeerd” = Reformed or Calvinist) only make up about 5% of the population (I think it’s about 25% in the US)?

But my high school was a protestant school with quite a few Reformed teachers. Both the Big Bang and evolution are obligatory subjects in Dutch schools, but my physics teacher denied the Big Bang (though he did explain it) and my biology teacher denied evolution (he did explain it, but also taught us about creationism).

3 Likes