Take another quiz >

Stupid Beliefs of the Internet

Guess these things that some people actually believe - despite having no valid reason to do so.
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
First submittedDecember 17, 2014
Last updatedDecember 20, 2014
Times taken30,130
Rating3.24
5:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 21 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Clue
Answer
This 2001 Al-Qaeda attack was actually staged by the U.S. government
9/11
This 1969 world event was a hoax - filmed in a "Hollywood basement"
Moon Landing
This 16th century Frenchman accurately foresaw future world events
Nostradamus
This form of preventative medicine causes autism
Vaccines
This is only about 6,000 years old
The Earth
This military facility in Nevada holds the remains of a crashed alien spacecraft
Area 51
This person was born in Nigeria, or Indonesia, or anywhere besides the U.S.
Barack Obama
This phenomenon, caused by increased levels of CO2, is not actually happening
Global Warming
This rock musician died in 1966 and was secretly replaced with a look-alike
Paul McCartney
This singer, thought to have died in 1977, is still alive somewhere
Elvis Presley
This substance in the drinking water is meant to keep the population docile
Fluoride
Franklin Roosevelt had advance knowledge of this attack
Pearl Harbor
There is no actual scientific evidence to support this theory by Charles Darwin
Evolution
Ancient aliens built these timeless structures
The Pyramids
The CIA created this virus to wipe out Africans and homosexuals
HIV
This 2005 natural disaster was sent by God to punish sinners
Hurricane Katrina
Lacrosse players from this University sexually assaulted a stripper
Duke
"Cleansing" this organ has beneficial health effects
Colon
Jesus married this biblical character and their descendants are still around today
Mary Magdalene
These tracks left by airplanes contain dangerous chemicals
Contrails
These Brazilian berries have powerful health benefits
Açaí
+1
level 74
Feb 23, 2015
I actually believe the Area 51 and Aliens built the pyramids. The rest of the beliefs are stupid!
+9
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
If aliens built the pyramids then, assuming they had the very advanced technology necessary to travel between worlds, why did they make such laughably primitive structures? The Pyramids and the Temple of Karnak and other ancient structures are absolutely amazing and awe-inspiring only because we know that they were built without the benefit of modern technology and machinery. But.... all things being equal, they're much less impressive than, say, the Burj Khalifa, or the Three Gorges Dam. or the International Space Station. Just a big pile of rocks... this theory is incredibly... what the title of the quiz says that it is.


Area 51... well there really is an Area 51 and there are some strange things that go on there but there's little good reason to believe they are hiding space aliens. I suppose of all these theories maybe that ones at least the most plausible. Still not terribly likely.
+3
level 77
Feb 24, 2015
There's a really cool new theory about how the pyramids were built described here. Elegant and beautiful in its simplicity.
+1
level 69
Mar 11, 2015
There's also a bloke in the US who built a replica of Stonehenge (another structure said to have been built by aliens) in his backyard using nothing but wood blocks, pebbles and rope to manoeuvre the slabs into place. You can find him on YouTube; it's magnificent, even if the finished article is ugly as sin.
+4
level 76
May 30, 2015
Silly people. There are no aliens in Area 51. They live in District 9.
+1
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
I saw that video Wombat! Physics is awesome.
+1
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
@Wombat And then there's Foamhenge in Virginia. It's almost as laden with idiot theories as Stonehenge, being America in the electronic Disinformation Age and all.
+2
level 76
Oct 10, 2015
So basically, aliens came to Earth, collected up a load of rocks, piled them up around dead pharaohs, and then left as quietly as they had come? The Pyramids are just heaps of rocks. I find it more impressive that people built things like Gothic cathedrals and sprawling stately homes without the aid of modern machinery, but that might be just me.
+1
level 42
Jun 6, 2019
@Brandybuck96 maybe they should add Pharos are burried under these to this list. Apparently everyone thinks that the pyramids were tombs when in fact they were not.
+2
level 60
Feb 23, 2015
Mary Magdalene is called Maria Magdalena in German. Tried Maria, Mary, Magdalena. Maybe accept Magdalena too? I thought I missed something.
+10
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
Good thing Quizmaster didn't add the belief that the government is reptiles, which is a demonstrable fact.
+3
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
and the British royal family.
+1
level 56
Aug 14, 2019
Right Kal, just like the Saudi Royal Family, one member of which you deflowered.
+1
level 77
Aug 30, 2019
Are they also inter-dimensional time-traveling reptilian shapeshifters? I didn't know that. I thought they were just aholes.
+4
level 66
Feb 25, 2015
There's a difference between the reptiles in the US government and actual reptiles, though. Actual reptiles can be lovable creatures. :P
+3
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
And bearded dragons actually show perceptive movement every once in a while.
+1
level 69
Mar 11, 2015
And, curiously, Boxcar Willy.
+2
level 67
Feb 23, 2015
Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution. Just the mechanism by which it occurs. The idea of evolution precedes Darwin by some time.
+1
level 36
Feb 24, 2015
Yeah, that stuff can be traced back to Anaximander, at least. Its evolution "by natural selection" that Darwin was all about.
+1
level 53
Feb 23, 2015
Acai DOES have very high antioxidants, there actually was a lot of suspicion around the details of 9/11 and Donald Trump even said Obama was born outside of the US and it's completely unfounded. Could it be that you have the generic textbook view on things? Think independently.
+14
level 66
Feb 23, 2015
Donald Trump is not a primary source. Being rich does not make you an authority on anything except being rich.
+18
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
Hahaha... did you actually cite Donald Trump as a reliable source? Haha... I hope you're trolling.
+11
level 60
Mar 11, 2016
There is no *credible* suspicion about 9/11, and Donald Trump is a blowhard who will say anything that gets his name in the paper. You have to be kidding with those two propositions. Acai berries are good for you, as are most fruits. It's the fact that they are presented as some kind of heretofore unknown miracle cure that is absurd.
+8
level 69
Aug 30, 2016
Why is it that people who say "think independently" or "have an open mind" and especially people who use the term "sheeple" typically have the poorest performing critical faculties?
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
Probably because they know it's a good way to get people to agree with them. If you have strong evidence of something you shouldn't need to resort to the argument "don't think what other people think".
+1
level 73
Jun 5, 2019
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Open_mind#What_it_is_not
+2
level 53
Feb 23, 2015
Sorry I meant it's NOT completely unfounded.
+1
level 42
Feb 23, 2015
Paul is dead.
+2
level 61
Dec 19, 2016
He's like the only one who ISN'T dead.
+8
level 67
May 10, 2018
Aww, poor Ringo. Forgotten again.
+1
level 40
Jul 23, 2018
poor ringo
+6
level 60
Feb 23, 2015
Instead of the "Jesus married this biblical character and their descendants are still around today" clue for a stupid belief, you could have just inserted "the bible is true."
+5
level 46
Jul 21, 2015
Hahahaha that's such a stupid belief that Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, most US presidents, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., and billions of people all around the world, MANY of whom are geniuses, have believed for centuries. Let's laugh at these stupid people.
+3
level 19
Apr 22, 2016
@Kenobi, for someone taking an online quiz, you certainly aren't very knowledgeable. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I am, of course, and always have been an atheist." - Albert Einstein The first 5+ presidents were deists. Benjamin Franklin as well. Galileo and Copernicus are famous for going against the church. But sure, let's pull examples from a time when we weren't as knowledgeable about science as we are now. That makes perfect sense! Today: Stephen Hawking is an atheist. So are many of the smartest people in science. Are you claiming to be smarter than Hawking, Tyson, Dawkins, etc?
+4
level 41
Jan 7, 2017
Most of the scientists referenced did go against the church but that doesn't mean they weren't Christians. There's actually a pretty famous Christian who went against the church about 2000 years ago...
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
By went against the church, they did not go against the religion, but the leaders in control. To be a Christian, you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross, and was risen to life 3 days later. Christianity is one of the oldest religions in the world today, going back 2000 plus years. Over those 2 millennia, many hundreds of things have been proven correct about the Bible. Whether you believe or not, there is no denying that Jesus existed. At minimum he was a Jew that opposed the teachings of the Sanhedrin. So Words, I suggest knowing, before speaking.
+2
level 57
Nov 11, 2018
Albert Einstein, of course, wasn't a Christian. He was ethnically Jewish and an atheist. Most of the people @Kenobi mentioned were Christians but the fact that some clever people have been Christian in the past doesn't mean that it actually is true. You can say the same of any religion and of atheism. @Theodore, what "many hundreds" of things have been proven true about the Bible? As far as I know none of it has been. Jesus may well have existed, but a lot of the things the Bible says about him aren't true, so it kind of depends on how similar someone has to be to Jesus to be considered "Jesus". And of course, he didn't come back to life because that is impossible.
+1
level 46
Apr 23, 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
+1
level 73
Jun 14, 2019
^ I can't see anything on the page you linked to that claims the people mentioned are biblical literalists.

Even if they were, what would that prove?
+1
level 73
Jun 14, 2019
Theo and RandomSK - WTF are you talking about?
2,000 years ago (from the year of your posts) would have been 17AD - there were no Christians then and there is no proof that Jesus existed. Even if a historical Jesus did exist that proves nothing about the veracity of the bible.

So Theo, I suggest learning some very basic arithmetic, before making bizarre irrelevant claims.
+1
level 76
Oct 10, 2015
But parts of it are...
+1
level 57
Nov 11, 2018
Which parts in particular? Even if parts of it are, that isn't enough to make it "true". Harry Potter says that there is no way to use magic to bring people back to life. Does that make it true?
+3
level 64
Oct 23, 2016
I gotta say, that's pretty insulting. There's plenty of things in the Bible that did happen, and lots of still-valuable messages. Not everything's true, but you can't just dismiss all of it.
+3
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
Sure can.
+2
level 57
Nov 11, 2018
Getting "still-valuable messages" from the Bible requires ignoring large parts of it that say the exact opposite to the "nice" bits, and the fact that there are no important messages in it that you can't get from anywhere else. Why is admitting the falsehood of that belief more insulting than admitting the falsehood of any of the others here? Few, if any, of the things in the Bible happened. And I don't have a problem with dismissing all of Harry Potter (i.e. admitting it isn't true) because the vast majority of it isn't true.
+1
level 67
Apr 21, 2019
There are also valuable messages in the Harry Potter books.
+1
level 64
Oct 22, 2018
haha i remember when i was 14 too
+1
level 43
Feb 23, 2015
You ever see the back of a twenty dollar bill... on weed? Oh, there's some crazy sh*t, man. There's a dude in the bushes. Has he got a gun? I dunno! RED TEAM GO, RED TEAM GO.
+5
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
I get the author believes these beliefs are incorrect - so why not just say that, instead of using the insult-word "stupid"? A quietly-spoken friend, shaken as he described to me experiencing his own close UFO encounter, is why (I believe!) using "stupid" is maybe not an accurate word choice here. "The earth is round" and "man will fly one day" were once considered "stupid" - and have turned out to be true. My prediction is that at least one of what's appeared in this quiz will one day be accepted as true as well. In the meantime, while we aren't actually sure, why throw insult-words at those who put up these theories?
+1
level 44
Feb 23, 2015
I agree!
+9
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
Personal experience should be discounted as evidence by any good skeptic.
+4
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
Hey man, you're up to 17 posts on this quiz now! But your passion is fun to read anyway. But you must tell me one day how a sceptic is supposed to conclude anything at all (even, for example, that something is stupid!) given that every perception, in any way, shape or form, is through personal experience. They can't make any conclusion, because their personal experience of seeing, hearing, feeling and sensing doesn't count - but if they have no conclusions, how could they be a sceptic any more because a non-concluding sceptic is a contradiction in terms? PS - coming to a conclusion cannot be done without having a personal experience of doing so...
+6
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
If I know something is true only because a friend of a friend had a profound personal experience, this is not convincing. If I know something is true only because a friend had a profound personal experience, this is only slightly better. If I know something is true only because I myself had a profound personal experience, this is still not wholly convincing. If, on the other hand, I had an experience that was shared by several other people, the effects of which were independently verified by others I didn't know, with some sort of physical evidence left behind, and no good reason to doubt it, then I can feel pretty confident that this experience was true.

Skepticism is not about doubting everything that can't be proven absolutely. That's ridiculous. You would not be able to function without some degree of trust. We can make reasonable assumptions. We can assume that our senses do not betray us so long as what we sense is not out of the ordinary.
+4
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
And we can make reasonable assumptions about the world based on trust and experience. We can then use those reasonable assumptions to evaluate the trustworthiness or individuals and institutions in an expanding pattern that extends outward from ourselves. Certain institutions warrant a greater investment of trust than others. It's complicated but in short you're looking for information coming from sources that are themselves skeptical, subject to peer review, transparent, accountable, reliable (have they issued information previously that was found to be false, distorted, misleading, fabricated, etc... and, importantly, did they own up to those mistakes if they occurred), and trusted by other similarly trustworthy institutions or individuals. Do these institutions exercise any professional or academic rigor in checking facts that they publish? Are they driven by an agenda? These are some important questions to consider.
+4
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
If experts in a scientific field conduct numerous experiments to confirm some hypothesis, then publish those findings in a peer-reviewed journal, and those findings are replicated by other scientists in a different country, and then someone from the Associated Press reports on those findings and fact checks the story... this information deserves more trust than if one person makes up a story and publishes a video on YouTube about it, without any fact checking, without any peer review, probably anonymously.
Similarly, if, in controlled experiments thousands of researchers over the course of decades are not able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomena, it's more worthwhile to place trust in them than in a single person's anecdotal experience. We know that people sometimes hallucinate, or make things up, or exaggerate, or are confused, or take drugs, or lie, or have vivid dreams, or suffer mental illness. We know memory is highly imperfect and personal testimony is untrustworthy.
+2
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
So tell me: if you were in the room where Galileo was being given a hard time for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun, what would you do? Defend him on the basis that a theory is a theory and deserves respect in the absence of conclusive proof either way? Or join his accusers who claimed his assumption wasn't reasonable because his claim was clearly out of the ordinary (and also apparently against God)? This is a direct question to you, sir: What would you do? I bet if this quiz had been set in 1616, "Earth revolves around the sun" would have appeared as a stupid belief. (See here for more - it's a fascinating read).
+4
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
You could find thousands of examples. But the scientific method has done more to further human knowledge and understanding of the world in the past couple hundred years than everything else we've tried in the preceding 150,000.

Also as Sagan put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yeah... it could all be an elaborate scam. There could be an elaborate conspiracy in place to just make it seem like we should trust the things that we do. But this defies logic and occam's razor. It makes less sense and contradicts all relevant experience.
And yeah... maybe we're all hopped up on drugs right now and none of this is real. Maybe our minds are controlled by demons. Maybe we're living inside the Matrix. But then you're being overly skeptical. Like I said, after a certain point you would not be able to function in the world unless you allow for certain basic assumptions. And then this discussion would be even more pointless than it seems to be.
+5
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
Galileo lived in a world dominated by dogmatism. The church was not, never has been, and probably never will be properly skeptical. They are not open to admitting they are wrong, they are not open to new information, and they approach the world with a clear and obvious bias. Galileo's Europe was pre-Enlightenment. The scientific method had yet to start working its mojo. Galileo deserves a lot of credit for helping to get us to where we are. Of course not everyone is on board. Some people still prefer to believe in nonsense without good reason. They just don't have the excuse that those in the 16th century had which would be that "stupidity" was pervasive and normal. Fortunately, though many of the ideas on this quiz are widespread, none of them can be described as mainstream.
+2
level 59
Feb 24, 2015
Woah, 17 posts (and counting)? This quiz really activised people, especially Kalbahamut. Btw, why would someone even bother to write multiple more-than-5-row comments and reply to all the others? P.S. Hoorah! Kalba and Jerry are the same level on Jetpunk!
+4
level 77
Feb 24, 2015
Yeah... sorry for that. It was 6 in the morning when I typed the above and I hadn't slept yet. I was rambling. Here is a more concise answer:

Philosophical skepticism is summed up here, and is interesting to dabble in but also has many limitations and is not a very practical thing to live your life around. I touched on some points above, if inelegantly.
Practical skepticism, otherwise known as critical thinking, is described here, and is what I was hamfistedly trying to explain above. This would have been useful even in Galileo's day, but, as the world becomes more scientific, rational, and skeptical the number of reliable information sources increases and it starts to become easier to be a functioning and practical skeptic and critical thinker.
+2
level 83
Feb 23, 2015
I predict the one that will end up being true is that Elvis is really alive. 80 years old and still rockin the house in Scottsdale, Arizona.
+1
level 76
Apr 24, 2016
I don't see anyone denying that there is alien life in the universe. The stupid belief is that evidence of their existence is being hidden in Area 51.
+1
level 60
Aug 31, 2016
Agree. Asking reasonable and often logical questions is often batted away and belittled as "conspiracy theorist"... that's not a reasonable, logical answer.
+2
level 64
Oct 23, 2016
They're stupid because they're wrong. End of story. It's stupid to believe that the provably false is true.
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Ah, but can you prove all of these false. While I do not believe half of the 'stupid' things on this list, I must ask, can you prove them false? Prove to me that evolution is true. Since I have a feeling that you believe in evolution as per your earlier comment, I have some questions for you. If evolution is true, then how has nothing evolved since we have been observing everything? Did the earth just get bored? Charles Darwin wasn't even the one who really believed his work was true. It was his wife. She published his works after he died. And lastly, explain these lines from Charles Darwin's autobiography: Evolution has brought me much dismay. The thought of evolution is a distasteful one. While dissecting a human eyeball later in his life, Darwin said, "Something this complex could not has been made by accident." I rest my case. You may state yours if you would like.
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
@YantheMan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
+1
level 73
Mar 26, 2018
TheE45 -

Evolution is a continuous process - it hasn't stopped 'since we have been observing everything', whatever that is supposed to mean.

Whether he believed it or not does not affect it's veracity.

Similarly, finding the concept of his work distasteful does not falsify it.

The eyeball wasn't made by accident - it was made by the trial and error mechanism of random mutations in the genetic code which led to the carriers of the ever more effective 'light-sensors' becoming more and more prolific at the expense of the carriers with less effective light-sensors.
+3
level 67
May 10, 2018
@TheodoreE45 - Nearly everything you said is incorrect.
  • Macroevolution (e.g., the creation of new species) happens on a scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Humans have only been observing for a fraction of that. And even in that time, we have observed countless cases of microevolution both in the laboratory and in the wild.
  • On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, and The Descent of Man was published in 1871. Darwin died in 1882.
  • I am unable to find those lines in Darwin's autobiography. In fact, searching for them online, the only result is this very comments section. What exactly is your source for them?
  • Similarly, I can find no source for the quote about the eye. Nearest I can find is this, which says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say.
+2
level 77
May 17, 2018
Marlowe- good post, but to be more accurate there is no difference at all between "macro evolution" and "micro evolution." There is only evolution. The previous two terms were invented by Creationists to try and explain away why we can directly observe evolution taking place but still deny that one "kind" of organism can evolve into other "kind"s (another term they invented that has no scientific meaning). We can see evolution taking place. Now. It has been directly observed. We've seen organisms, over generations, change due to environmental pressures and the effect that these pressures have on those organisms' ability to reproduce. And, we have even observed populations of organisms, when isolated from one another, accumulating so many cumulative changes over generations that they become distinct from one another and can no longer reproduce with one another. This is called speciation, and it's the closest scientific term we have to the made up "macro evolution"
+1
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
@Aesthus, not even close.

The beliefs are wrong and provably wrong
Therefore:
They are stupid.

No circular reasoning. Just a straightforward premise and conclusion.
+2
level 77
Sep 29, 2018
More accurately they are delusional. "Stupid" is not technically accurate, even if colloquially synonymous.
+1
level 73
Jul 10, 2019
Further to Kal's comments regarding observing evolution, check out Richard Lenski's research working with E. Coli - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

And the humorous situation that Andrew Schlafly got himself and Conservapedia into - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Lenski_dialogue

Or here for the full correspondence - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
+1
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
Damn! Tried "MMR", "Measles Mumps Rubella", and "triple jab" for the vaccines one.
+1
level 45
Jan 27, 2016
Me too.
+1
level 44
Feb 23, 2015
I still don't believe in global warming lol also how do we know there aren't aliens in area 51??
+10
level 72
Feb 23, 2015
How do we know vaccines didn't damage your mental capacities? I guess we'll never know.
+1
level 47
Feb 25, 2015
Hahahaha
+2
level 54
Dec 12, 2016
What score did you get? And were you immunised as a kid?
+2
level 76
Oct 10, 2015
Admittedly global warming is a strange term for it, because climate change is definitely happening, just not everywhere is experiencing this nice-sounding "warming" that everyone's talking about.
+1
level 28
Jan 23, 2017
Climate change is happening its just not caused by humans as much as we think.
+2
level 57
Sep 10, 2018
As much as who thinks? And it is definitely caused by humans, and although there are other factors speeding it up it is pretty much all a chain reaction starting from humans. As the earth heats up polar ice melts, reflecting less heat into space and further heating the earth up, for example. But humans started it.
+1
level 47
Dec 23, 2015
i know right
+2
level 50
Feb 23, 2015
Very few of these have anything to do with the Internet - not sure why that's in the title.
+1
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
True, though the Internet has done a lot to spread them around and allow isolated crazy people to network and spread their insanity more easily. About the only one that really has the Internet to thank for it's initial creation and spread is the 9/11 conspiracies which, for the most part, all sprang out of that stupid Loose Change video on YouTube.
+1
level 77
Oct 28, 2018
What's going on? Why are so many of the comments that I previously responded to disappearing? Has there been a user purge that wiped out all the comments those users had left? Is this related to the new policy where you have to be a certain level before you gain the ability to leave comments? I know I asked this on another quiz before but I can't recall now which quiz that was. I'll come back and check this one if you want to respond. I'm curious if I should be deleting my responses that no longer are responding to anything or not.
+2
level ∞
Oct 28, 2018
Yes, we now delete users who haven't created any quizzes and haven't logged in within a year. We don't want to have any more e-mails and passwords than we have to.
+1
level 73
Dec 21, 2018
I assume that stats are also deleted when a user's account is?

That might make it a good time to update the 'How Does Your JetPunk Level Stack Up?' blog post
+3
level 73
Feb 23, 2015
Just remember as Abraham Lincoln so wisely said "Don't believe everything you read on the internet".
+2
level 19
Apr 22, 2016
I'm pretty sure that quote is from Washington...
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Know your history! That was most clearly Caesar!
+1
level 70
Feb 21, 2017
Al Gore invented Caesar Salad.
+1
level 32
Feb 23, 2015
Isn't the first rule of science, is that science has never proven anything.....
+4
level 77
Feb 23, 2015
No, that's the first rule of Creationist/Republican science denialism.
+3
level 26
May 30, 2017
kalbahamut, that is completely wrong. For a start, one of the core principles of science is that nothing is ever provable, but instead can be disproven in order to keep improving on current hypotheses (a reasoned prediction of whether two things are correlated) and theories (a theory is a tested, well-substantiated explanation, such as the theory of evolution). This is known as falsifiability, where something must have the ability to be disproved in order to be scientific (look up Karl Popper). A good example is the assumption that all swans are white because all the swans you see in your day to day life just so happen to be white (well, they're white in the UK, which is the basis of this example). But if you travel to Australia, you will find that swans can be black, and that your original hypothesis was wrong.
+1
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
If a thing is disproven that still means that science proved something.
+1
level 57
May 19, 2018
I think you are using different definitions for "proof".
+1
level 77
Jun 15, 2018
Definition one on Google: "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."

You can certainly use the scientific method to do that.
+1
level 57
Jun 17, 2018
Yes, I agree. The term "proof" can have different meanings in other contexts though, and often people can get confused about which one is being meant at the time. In maths, for example, the presence of evidence is not considered enough for a proof, and once something is proven true it is true forever unless the proof contained an error. This is not what is meant by proof in science and while things may be proven effectively for certain there is still some possibility, however small, that a proven theory will turn out to be wrong or incomplete.
+1
level 77
Aug 30, 2019
Lately anti-science denialism is catching on amongst Democrats and far-leftists as well, sadly. We need a 3rd party.
+1
level 28
Feb 23, 2015
Wow, very one sided. And it's name calling in the title. Guess it must have been made by a libtard (I can name call too).
+1
level 73
Jul 10, 2019
There is no name calling in the title. What is being referred to as stupid are the beliefs, not the people holding the beliefs. Why are people struggling to understand this?
+2
level 62
Feb 23, 2015
To have internet stupidity is so very eccentric: reality yawns every night, 'til eerie rodents tiptoe across ice, nastily imagining noisy games.
+1
level 46
Jul 21, 2015
Very clever acrostic ;) wish there were more people like you on here who just wanna have fun and not get into flaming debates with strangers like over in the Youtube menagerie
+2
level 36
Feb 24, 2015
skepticism presented in a fun way.
+1
level 67
Feb 24, 2015
(The) Theory of evolution is not accepted as an answer...
+1
level 19
Apr 22, 2016
Said no intelligent person ever.
+1
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It was written by Charles Darwin as an account of what might have happened.
+4
level 54
Jul 14, 2017
That's not what theory means in a scientific sense
+2
level 43
Jul 21, 2017
People still don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory...completely different definitions. Scientific theories are the highest level an idea can reach, meaning its accepted as fact
+2
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
Theodore you are scientifically illiterate and historically ignorant.
+1
level 67
May 10, 2018
@Words - I think they mean that that specific phrasing is not accepted as an answer on the quiz.
+1
level 35
Feb 26, 2015
aw man I put fluorine and mary and didnt get those two, but maybe thats not specific/correct enough
+1
level 58
Feb 26, 2015
There's a difference between fluorine and fluoride. They don't put fluorine in the water AFAIK. I tried fluorine myself a couple times before I realized my mistake.
+1
level 73
Nov 27, 2017
There's more than one Mary in the New Testament
+1
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
Yeah, might want to specify or otherwise it takes on a whole new meaning.
+1
level 45
Feb 26, 2015
Most of these are stupid, yes... but why is cleansing your colon on here? Obviously getting leftover actual crap out of your body is good for you...?
+2
level 77
Feb 26, 2015
Prove it.

Actually, if you want to talk about medical procedures involving crap that have actually been proven to have health benefits, you should look up fecal transplants. Yes, that's a thing. Your colon is supposed to have crap in it. That's what it's for.
+2
level 56
Mar 27, 2016
I was a fecal donor for a good friend who was suffering from something similar to crone's... Apparently his stomach didn't produce a certain kind of bacteria that must of us have so he couldn't break down foods well... After the transplant he did much better.. I guess there's a lot of that bacteria in our crap and once it's in his stomach it spreads on it's own... I had never heard of it before that, but it's pretty interesting.
+1
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
@bpd27 You're my new anonymous internet hero.
+2
level 67
Apr 22, 2019
Goodness me, there are lots of good jokes about this entry,...... but I haven't got the guts to put them in print.
+1
level 40
Sep 24, 2019
I'd like to be a faecal donor, but I couldn't give a...
+2
level ∞
Feb 27, 2015
PSA, don't get your colon cleansed. It's not good for you:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/consumer-health/expert-answers/colon-cleansing/faq-20058435

+1
level 47
May 28, 2016
My problem with this question is there are so many organs that fit the description, eg liver cleanse
+1
level 69
Aug 30, 2016
That was what I put down - I'd contend it's the more common form of nonsense.
+1
level 37
Feb 27, 2015
If Earth is more than 6,000 years old, which this quiz states IS true (and obviously it is), than Darwin's Theory of evolution MUST be true. And there is a ton of evidence to prove that it is. All of science is based on theory's and a theory is a hypothesis grouped with reasonable facts to prove it. So yes, technically it is the THEORY of evolution, not the fact, but, because of the evidence that supports it, it is accepted as a logical and probable process. Essentially, a THEORY cannot be proven or disproven, its very basis is developed from observations, so you could say that there is evidence to 'prove' it. It would be the same as if someone believed in Lamarck's THEORY that traits acquired during an organisms lifetime can be passed on to it's offspring. Though there is considerably less evidence that supports this, it is based off of a hypothesis which is formed from scientific observations. A theory becomes widely accepted based on the amount of evidence that supports it.
+1
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Since when can a theory not be proven or disproven? That is very inaccurate. You could state a theory that it will snow tonight. If you wake up and there is snow, then your theory has been proven. Also, there is a lot of evidence that evolution is not true. Science has one fact that you cannot deny. Bias. Everyone has a bias towards something or other. Christians have a bias towards God. Evolutionists have a bias towards evolution. So when an evolutionist tests his or her theory on evolution, they will almost subconsciously lean toward their belief. Science, when really broken down, is just another belief system. Believed by many, and has become a religion for many as well.
+1
level 41
Feb 10, 2017
Science is not a religion, or even a belief system. Sure, science can be biased sometimes, but it is based on facts. People died because of science. Giordano Bruno was a Christian. Nicolas Copernicus was a Christian.I hardly believe that someone who was a devout Christian would be biased toward anything other than Christianity.
+1
level 73
May 30, 2019
Theo you don't know what you're talking about.

In science, you can't have a 'theory that it will snow tonight', that would be a hypothesis.

The scientific method involves attempting to disprove hypotheses. Often a hypothesis will be disproven, and sometimes a hypothesis will stand up against many attempts to disprove it, both of which increase our knowledge

As science accepts empirical evidence as being more reliable than dogmatic insistence / denial, and actively attempts to disprove its own hypotheses, it is not a belief system, nor a religion.

Your argument is a fallacy of equivocation and a PRATT and reveals your ignorance of the subject
+1
level 73
May 31, 2019
Just came across this article which is pertinent to these comments - https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/excellent-beauty/201710/is-science-religion
+1
level 73
Jun 19, 2019
In fact, it's barely even a hypothesis unless you include some kind of reason why you think it will snow tonight, whether that be because it is cold and cloudy and you believe those to be the conditions in which snow is likely to form, or because you bought a new car and you think that snow is somehow attracted to brand new Mazdas somehow
+1
level 70
Feb 21, 2017
"If Earth is more than 6,000 years old, which this quiz states IS true (and obviously it is), than Darwin's Theory of evolution MUST be true." .... Actually, the Earth being older than 6,000 years only conclusively proves 1 thing...that Creationists who insist that the Biblical creation account deals with literal 24-hour days are completely wrong in their assumption. It in no way vindicates Darwin's theory. The Bible uses the term "day" in any number of different ways, ranging from a period of time covering approx. 12 hours to a time period covering thousands of years. Each creative "day" could have been eons in length, which would be in complete harmony with science. And this is not some new understanding. Scholars have understood this to be so even prior to the 20th Century.
+1
level 24
Jul 8, 2017
While it is true that in the Bible days can be characterized by more than just literal days, isn't it also possible that God created the world as a "fully grown" planet? Christians believe Adam and Eve were created as adults, so why is it completely insane to believe that the world was created the same. This would also go along with the theory that the Earth is 4.3 billion years old (or however old it is I can't remember anymore, atheist scientists keep changing their minds).
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
Don is technically right...in the sense that, in English, you can say 'in my day' and 'day' will not mean a 24-hour period of time. But in context (e.g., 'there was morning, and there was evening') it's difficult to think of it as anything else.
+2
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
That's just made up foolery. A day is half a day or thousands of years in the bible? Sounds like you really can't take anything literally in the bible at all.
+1
level 57
Apr 5, 2015
I kept guessing intestines for the one about the thing people like to cleanse. I even guessed large intestines once to try and make it more specific. Can you add either of those answers? Because for some reason colon didn't come to mind but I knew what the answer was.
+1
level 61
Jan 3, 2018
me too
+1
level 25
Apr 10, 2015
Do not change this quiz. It is fine the way it is. These morons who believe the earth is 6000 might as well go and research actual scientific research to fully understand how wrong they are, but then again you can't fix stupid sigh...
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
How lucky you are. I would love to know; how old is the Earth?
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Might as well ask you. You must have been there. How else would you be so confident...
+2
level 41
Feb 8, 2017
The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years. This value is based on radiometry, which dates meteorite samples. I hope this clears up any confusion!
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
D'y'know radiometric dating once put a rock formed of lava put out by Mount Saint Helens (which erupted thirty years ago) at several million years?
+1
level 6
Dec 18, 2017
@Aesthus Lave is created under the Earth slowly, so that could explain why the rock formed from this lava is dated as so old, even if it had just recently formed a rock
+3
level 67
May 10, 2018
D'y'know that using a tool whose sensitivity gives it a lower measurement limit of 2,000,000 years to measure something six years old will lead to inaccurate results? It's like using a truck scale to weigh individual grains of sand.
+1
level 73
May 30, 2019
Theo, another terrible argument - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_do_you_know%3F_Were_you_there%3F
+1
level 37
Jun 12, 2015
according to the bible the earth is 6000 years old, so to christians it is true!
+3
level 76
Jun 19, 2015
I'm Christian and I don't believe that's true. Not all of us are ultraconservative literalists, you know, and my spiritual beliefs co-exist just fine with scientific facts.
+1
level 77
Jul 7, 2015
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. There are trees alive on Earth today that are more than 6,000 years old.
+2
level 74
Jan 27, 2016
According to Wikipedia, the oldest tree in the world is a Bristlecone pine aged 5,065 years. Young enough to have started growing around the time of Noah's flood.
+1
level 77
Jan 23, 2017
Old Tjikko in Sweden is nearly 10,000 years old. There never was a flood. It's impossible. There is zero evidence of it. You believe in a fairy tale. Other fairy tale-believers (Biblical literalists) put the age of the Earth at between 5,000 and 6,000 years and the date of the flood at around 4,000 to 4,500 years ago. So... try again.
+2
level 74
May 25, 2017
Actually, there is all kinds of evidence for the flood. There are hundreds of square kilometers on every continent of sedimentary rock hundreds to thousands of meters thick. As if a great flood deposited them there. There are coal beds hundreds of meters thick with vertical trees through dozens of layers, as if a giant flood deposited huge volumes of plant matter, then buried them with sediment. Noah's flood is by far the best explanation for coal beds, fossil beds, sediments, the whole works. And now there have been over a hundred cases of finding dinosaur protein. Science has proven that protein cannot exist for even 100,000 years, let alone 80 million. Darwin is WRONG.
+2
level 24
Jul 8, 2017
Also, kalbahamut, there are several recordings from several different religions and civilizations accounting for a world wide flood.
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
Hehehehehe, 'several'. No. No. There are HUNDREDS of flood myths from around the world. There's a Greek one. There's a Chinese one. Heck, there's even a Hawaiian flood myth. Explain to me how that happened without a once-connected and civilised society with similar origins and an actual flood. In fact, if you study flood myths and the evolutionary view of them, it's gone from 'non-existent' to 'coincidence' to 'localised floods' to 'a very big flood'. Ring around the rosy.
+3
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
Aesthus: earliest civilizations on Earth: Mesopotamia. Egypt. Indus Valley. Yellow River Valley. What did they all have in common? They sprung up in river flood plains. Check again. Proof of the Biblical flood is still non-existent.

evan: yes. Some religions (like Christianity and Judaism) plagiarized other religions. The Jews copied the Babylonians who had a similar Sumerian flood myth. But it's only similar. Definitely not the same story. So is the Sumerian story myth? and the Biblical story that came much later and is obviously a plagiarized version of the older Sumerian myth the perfect inerrant word of God? You actually believe this?

Hominka: you've never met a geologist in your life, have you? Noah's Flood myth is disproven by history, anthropology and archaeology, paleontology, meteorology, dendrochronology, zoology, and absolutely by geology, too. Also common sense. Look up Aron Ra's video series on the subject.
+2
level 76
Aug 7, 2016
I think most Christians would actually disagree with you.
+1
level 55
Mar 29, 2017
Its written in a book, it must be true! My whole life has been a lie!
+1
level 65
Feb 4, 2018
And, of course, it is NOT written in a book. The Bible makes absolutely no claim about how old the earth is or is not. There are simply some Christians who have attempted to calculate (without much conviction in my opinion) the age of the earth, using hints and clues from the Bible, including adding up all the begats. But that is an inexact effort, at best, even if one is inclined to take the Bible literally.
+4
level 83
Jul 11, 2015
I'd like to see this quiz get a makeover starting with the title. "Stupid Beliefs of the Internet" doesn't work because A) Most of them predate the internet by quite a bit, and B) Calling a belief stupid is just not classy. Even if it is wrong or you don't agree it's just immature.
+1
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Agreed. This is the only well put, non-biased comment on this whole quiz.
+2
level 55
Mar 29, 2017
Or...wait for it....you could just not do this quiz and move on with your life without letting these things bother you in such a way....novel idea, i know.
+3
level 46
Jul 21, 2015
Am I the only one who thinks that Kalbahamut could (and maybe should) write a dissertation, or some kind of manifesto, with the comments he's left on these quizzes?
+3
level 71
Jan 5, 2017
I would buy it but I don't want to lose anymore brain cells reading his crap.
+1
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Well spoken.
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
I think I've found some logical souls.
+3
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
That's awesome. You guys should get together and move to an island somewhere to wait for the Rapture. Gonna be aaaaanny day now... (they've been saying for 2000 years)
+2
level 70
Dec 19, 2018
You think it's an insult to suggest that someone is able to write a dissertation. Doesn't that say a lot about you?
+1
level 58
Oct 10, 2015
It's true what they say: how to antagonise complete strangers - post an opinion online then.....wait. But to call these assertions stupid was maybe a bit - stupid!
+1
level 47
Dec 23, 2015
There are loads of fake stories on the internet like: the CIA organised JFK's assassination and planned for him to be killed
+1
level 74
Jan 27, 2016
Excellent quiz although I think you could put any answer for any question and someone, somewhere would still think it was correct. Side note: I think fluorine should be accepted for fluoride :)
+3
level 71
Aug 4, 2016
I'll tell ya what, you put sodium on your fries instead of sodium chloride, and then make the argument that fluorine is equivalent to fluoride.
+1
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
Better yet, dump a bunch of sodium in the local water tower.
+1
level 59
Jan 27, 2016
I thought President Obama was born and raised in Mombasa?
+1
level 49
Feb 5, 2016
Yes he was - I saw him
+1
level 73
Dec 3, 2018
Only if Mombasa is your pet name for Honolulu
+1
level 53
Feb 5, 2016
Oh, come on...almost half of those "stupid beliefs" ain't so stupid if you think and actually investigate about them...
+1
level 19
Apr 22, 2016
Sure they are.... When was the last time you saw Elvis, again? Just taking notes for when you are referred to a therapist.
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
Where were you all those millions of years documenting evolution? Just taking notes for when you are referred to a therapist.
+2
level 55
Mar 29, 2017
ROFL @Theodore. There is so much wrong with what you said (and presumably believe)
+4
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
Ah.. it's the infernally stupid "were you THERE?" argument which I believe was authored by Ken Ham. Imagine someone using this argument in court when the forensic specialist comes in to show that the semen in the deceased body's orifice is a DNA match for the accused. Personal testimony is worth very little. Empirical evidence is much more valuable. And guess what? The facts prove you wrong.

btw, were you THERE when your god created the Universe? Yeah, didn't think so.
+2
level 56
Mar 27, 2016
What about the fact that crab-people assassinated Kennedy because they were worried that his space exploration attempts would expose the fact that we all live in the eye of a blue eyed Cyclopes?
+1
level 30
Jul 6, 2016
In my opinion, calling people who believe some of this stuff stupid is ridiculous. You cannot tell us that everything happened exactly how it was documented. The same way you can't believe the Bible.
+2
level 57
Jan 23, 2017
And, I am assuming you were alive to disprove the Bible? Were you there all those years ago?
+1
level 41
Feb 8, 2017
The deny the scientific evidence behind the creation of the universe is to deny the speed of light. We can, through telescopes, see stars that are approximately 13.7 billion light years away. Should the speed of light remain constant in the opposing belief, we would only see stars that are within a (relatively) small area of the Milky Way Galaxy, as the nearest galaxy to us outside of the Milky Way, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light years away. Therefore, the light from Andromeda would take 2.5 million years to reach us, which we would not be able to see had the universe been created before that time.
+1
level 51
Dec 6, 2017
This is called the speed-of-light problem. There are several reasonable young-earth explanations (like the idea of 'mature creation' - basically God didn't make the universe young, rather trees, people, and maybe light were all around the prime of their lifespans), and besides, it's a problem for evolutionary theory as well, since the universe, according to it, should be spreading too fast for light to overcome the speed. Like blowing up a balloon while trying to draw a line on it between two points - draw too slow, and the line will never be complete.
+4
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
"Mature creation?" So... god created a world and artificially aged it (with magic), buried dinosaur bones all over the Earth in the exact strata we would expect to find them if they had died out 10s of millions of years ago, tampered with the DNA of all organisms on Earth so that they appeared to be in perfectly hierarchical groups best explained by the theory that they all share common ancestors, red shifted all the light coming to us from stars to make it look like the Universe is expanding from a big bang billions of years ago... all to what end? To deceive us? Why is your god trying SO SO hard to trick everyone on Earth into believing he doesn't exist and that his best selling book is false? What would be the point of that?
+2
level 73
Mar 26, 2018
haha, +1 - Occam would be having a fit!
+2
level 57
May 19, 2018
@Aesthus, your comment is wrong in many ways. First, what @kalbahamut said. Second, this "problem" has nothing to do with evolution. Third, the universe is expanding but not as fast as light. Fourth, even if it was expanding as fast as light the light would be carried along by the universe expanding and so it could still move. Also, your analogy with the balloon doesn't work because assuming you are blowing the balloon up at a constant rate you actually will finish your line no matter how slowly you are going. The proof of this relies on calculus. And even if all your statements were true this wouldn't really cause any problems. We know that there are some things far enough away that we can't see them.
+1
level 58
Jul 12, 2016
I'm going to have to register an objection to the word "stupid" in the title.
+2
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
I second that. "Infantile" and "Downright idiotic" are more apt.
+1
level 67
Aug 6, 2016
I thought all of these were true. Where is my reality now?
+1
level 73
Dec 3, 2018
Don't worry - just think about the claims critically and accept the realisation that they are not true and you will be a much more developed person than those who are clinging to their ridiculous beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
+1
level 73
Dec 8, 2018
You weren’t being serious were you...

Gotta love the power of alcohol to make me not be able to tell when someone means what they say or not!
+2
level 60
Aug 6, 2016
accept 'intestine' for colon?
+1
level 61
Dec 10, 2016
I'm out here trying anus and rectum... And how about notre dame for nostradamus? Smh...
+3
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
Just how hard are you trying them?
+3
level 54
Dec 12, 2016
Agree, I tried rectum, bowel, large bowel, intestine, before trying all the other organs in the body, before coming back and trying colon!
+1
level 71
Jan 5, 2017
A lot of these aren't "stupid". Just because some people don't blindly accept the official story doesn't mean they are stupid.
+4
level 55
Mar 29, 2017
Yes, it does.
+2
level 76
Jun 16, 2017
When we were traveling in the Four Corners area of the US southwest I met a Dine (Navajo) who told me the creation story of his people. He told of three underworlds, colored clouds meeting to create the first people, and the four Sacred Peaks. I was so grateful that he shared with me. Do you really think I should have listened to his wonderful story and then called him stupid for his beliefs? My mother taught me to be respectful of the beliefs of others even if I don't share them.
+5
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
If he then started trying to enact legislation based on those beliefs, yes, you probably should have.
+1
level 41
Jan 7, 2017
Also, Paul McCartney is 100% dead
+1
level 48
Nov 23, 2017
boy if you dont
+1
level 72
Jan 17, 2017
"Stupid"...
+2
level 50
Jan 23, 2017
Please accept 'twin towers' for the 9/11 question.
+1
level 29
Jan 23, 2017
9/11 was more than just the twin towers
+2
level 55
Jan 23, 2017
Hey here's another one "Donald Trump will make America great again". Stupid or not according to the erudite theories above?
+1
level 48
Jan 23, 2017
I spent time guessing all the biblical characters I knew since Maria Magdalena didn't work.
+1
level 60
Mar 9, 2017
I also tried Mary Magdalena when Maria didn't work but no luck either.
+4
level 77
Jan 23, 2017
You could do a version of this quiz based entirely on 2016. Or even one that was only about things Donald Trump supporters believed.
+1
level 60
Jan 23, 2017
Yes. We'll need several "stupid belief" quizzes over the next 4years.
+1
level 46
Jan 23, 2017
Technically, James Otto Richardson "predicted" it... At least the "vulnerability to bombing" part.
+1
level 45
Jan 23, 2017
its weird what people are doing for attention
+2
level 54
Feb 25, 2017
Can you accept large intestine for colon please
+1
level 53
Nov 13, 2017
No, because they are not the same thing.
+1
level 57
Apr 24, 2017
Can't accept "Jet stream?"
+1
level 72
Jul 17, 2018
Why? It's not the same thing at all.
+1
level 39
Apr 28, 2017
Here is another one; The Nazis still has a secret military base in Antarctica, buried beneath the ice.
+1
level 39
Apr 28, 2017
''have''
+4
level 67
Jun 16, 2017
That's what I call a 'Cold War'.
+2
level 48
Jun 16, 2017
Gosh darn it I said fluorine instead of fluoride.
+1
level 76
Jun 16, 2017
When I was a kid we called them jet trails. Twenty years later they were calling them chemtrails. Now they are contrails? I think any of those three should be accepted.
+2
level 77
Dec 7, 2017
They are called contrails. "chemtrails" is what conspiracy kooks call them, but not what they're actually called.
+1
level 61
Apr 21, 2019
Never heard of contrails, just chemtrials. But indeed in the conspiracy context. I guess the con comes from condensation. We dont really have a specific word word them in our language. maybe planestripes haha. Or stripes/lines in the sky. And yes if you want to get scientific a condensation trail/trace. But I have hardly ever heard that being used as a word. As a description yes, what are those lines, ow it is condensation from the airplane.
+1
level 64
Sep 19, 2017
Add Tupac to this list
+1
level 73
Mar 26, 2018
Yeah - there's no way that Tupac was real. Like the Easter Bunny. And Slash.
+2
level 39
Oct 20, 2017
Area 51 is a part of Independence Day
+1
level 77
Feb 28, 2018
Iron Man is part of the Avengers
+2
level 73
Apr 3, 2018
Um, marjoram and my mum's spice rack
+1
level 43
Feb 17, 2018
how do only 47% know about fluoride?
+1
level 54
Apr 4, 2018
I agree with most of these. But seriously, everyone with an IQ above 90 knows that 9/11 was an inside job. It is stupid to put it next to some ridiculous theories listed here.
+2
level 77
May 3, 2018
If you've had your IQ tested over that I'd ask for my money back.
+1
level 58
May 7, 2018
Great idea!
+1
level 38
Aug 16, 2018
If I have read the Bible correctly, humans have been on earth for 6,000 years. Nowhere in the Bible have I read that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
+1
level 77
Aug 27, 2018
I never said you were malicious, diva.

The similarly non-malicious Christians out there who have produced the ridiculously inaccurate but Bible-supported model of Earth history that so many cite when they claim that the planet is around 6000 years old did so by using simple math and counting generations. Since you can use the Bible to trace back history from Jesus all the way to Adam (ignoring for a second that there are contradictory genealogies in different books), and Genesis says that Yahweh created Adam on the sixth day, then the Earth is as old as humans. Plus five days.

And, no, the account in Genesis does not become scientifically plausible if you pretend as though they were using the word "day" as a metaphor for a long period of time.
+2
level 57
Sep 2, 2018
For number 19, there are some much sillier things believed by many more people about Jesus. These other beliefs are definitely not "of the internet", but neither are some of the other questions on here.
+2
level 68
Oct 15, 2018
I think we can safely assume there are no aliens being kept in Area 51. If the government had evidence of alien life, does anyone really believe President Trump could have kept quiet about it for this long?
+1
level 77
Dec 16, 2018
I assume that they just wouldn't have told him. Or if it was in a briefing he was supposed to have read, well, obviously he wouldn't have read it unless one of the aliens was named Trump.
+1
level 31
Oct 28, 2018
I just thinking putting things in the water shouldn't happen, no matter what it does.
+1
level 57
Nov 11, 2018
You know that tap water isn't 100% pure anyway, don't you? If you only drank 100% pure water then you would become deficient in certain minerals. But that isn't much of a danger as the only way to make water 100% pure is by fractional distillation in an already extremely clean environment. I don't think you would have a problem with removing stuff from the water if it is poisonous, so what is the problem with adding things if in some parts of the world it is present anyway?
+1
level 31
Nov 30, 2018
But why does the government of many countries but Fluoride in the water? Keep your teeth white? Since when does the government care about it's citizens teeth, teeth care isn't free so it's not saving the NHS or equivalent. There are several negative impacts of it. I don't know if it's to keep the population docile, but it certainly isn't to keep peoples teeth white.
+2
level 73
Dec 3, 2018
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+add+fluoride+to+water
+1
level 77
Dec 16, 2018
I've taught children in developed countries and in developing countries where they don't fluoridate the water and it's always very apparent by looking at their teeth which one I'm in. Believing that fluoridation has anything to do with anything other than teeth is, as the quiz suggests, stupid.
+2
level 57
Feb 27, 2019
It's amazing how many people think that the only point of doing anything to your teeth is to keep them white. It is of course to keep them healthy (which means stopping them getting holes in or falling out).

In terms of the main point of your comment, you unfortunately have a case of blind mistrust of governments. Of course governments care about the health of their population, including dental health. The reasons to do so are numerous and fairly obvious, no matter how selfish you think governments are. Fluoride at very high concentrations genuinely is damaging to the teeth, but low concentrations (which are prevalent across most of the world) are damaging to the teeth too. The right concentration is roughly what western countries have it set to.
+1
level 53
Feb 2, 2019
100% maybe it's time for me to take a break from the internet
+1
level 39
Apr 21, 2019
I always thought 9/11 was 2002
+2
level 67
Apr 22, 2019
I think it is 0.81 recurring:
+1
level 67
Apr 22, 2019
It happened in W. Bush's first year of presidency, so, yeah, 2001.
+2
level 32
Apr 22, 2019
How is believing a rape accusation on any way the same level as any of the other answers? It's not even a conspiracy theory and it's likely true (especially in this case where she was a stripper and the men accused emailed about 'killing and skinning' strippers).
+1
level 24
Apr 22, 2019
I wouldn't call it "stupid beliefs of the internet" i've seen people from older generations believe in some of this stuff that barely use the internet.
+1
level 48
Apr 22, 2019
Are you serious? You put the basis of Christian belief as one of the "stupid beliefs from around the internet"? That's just downright disrespectful.
+2
level 77
May 2, 2019
which of these is the basis of Christian belief? Is it the one about colon cleansing? I always thought the foundation of Christianity was belief that Jesus died to atone for your sins and that by accepting him you can find salvation. Though that's also pretty silly, it doesn't appear on this quiz.
+1
level 76
Apr 22, 2019
While the internet is full of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, I feel compelled to add that after 11 years teaching community college, I have met more than a few geo-centrists. Fortunately, they don't seem to get much air time.
+1
level 77
Jun 29, 2019
If there are more than 2 of them, they will find each other online somewhere. Probably YouTube.
+1
level 27
Jul 13, 2019
This quiz spits straight facts!
+1
level 54
Oct 12, 2019
May as well call this things the President believes in.