[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with evolution.

[(Anonymous)]

It literally is though.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

[dethtoll]

Yes it is.

[kitelovesyou]

...

Yeah no.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

As you can see by the responses, nobody here seems to understand that.
The idea in that case would be that the structures that guide evolutionary development and the laws of science themselves were set in place by a creator, if I understand correctly.

[(Anonymous)]

A+, you get it. Good for you!

(Not being sarcastic. I'm actually glad that someone else gets it. I myself do not believe in that theory, but I do think it makes sense.)

[(Anonymous)]

I understand that, but it's a cop out, which is why people in this thread discount it.

[(Anonymous)]

"bawwww, people have different perspectives from mine, bawwwwww"

[(Anonymous)]

Er, not exactly. It's the not the difference in opinion that's a copout, it's the fact that EVERY theory can be trumped by a "God set it up to look that way" argument, so basically it's a non-argument. I think your grasp of the logic here isn't very solid.

[(Anonymous)]

I think your grasp of theology isn't very solid.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't really have to be in this case: "Well, yeah, from a scientific viewpoint it looks like the big bang theory, evolution, etc. is all legit, but really God was behind all of that" isn't going to sound very impressive to anyone unless they're really invested in mashing together two wrong-fitting puzzle pieces. I'm not, so...

[(Anonymous)]

If God can set up the laws of say, gravity, which make it so when you drop something it falls and it generally happens in the same way, why is it so much more difficult to believe that he would ahve set up other laws/processes that are more complex or happen over a longer period of time, that only now we're understanding how they work?

[(Anonymous)]

Because it's not so much a theory as it is layering on an unprovable claim on top of a legitimate theory. What's to say that the light in my fridge isn't operated by tiny invisible elves who disappear when I open the door? Sure, it might seem more reasonable to argue that no, fridge lights work because there's a switch that is flipped depending on whether or nor the door is opened or closed and there's a visible light bulb. But, I could argue, what if the tiny fridge-elves are the ones who make that mechanism work?

It's possible, just like it's possible that all our natural laws and evolution is governed by a powerful deity we can't see. But it's not provable, not testable, and most people who aren't religious or who base their beliefs on the scientific method rather than faith and unsupported conjecture won't view it as a particularly rational theory.

[kitelovesyou]

Well, Occam's Razor principle means many would find it "difficult" to believe. But others don't, so ehh. The belief is irrelevant to science anyway.

Let's put it this way

[chardmonster]

"I don't need to understand theology to make blanket statements about it" is pretty much only going to sound impressive to people with zero interest in human culture.

Re: Let's put it this way

[(Anonymous)]

<3

[diet_poison]

I don't even get what you mean by this. You basically sounds upset that people believe in God. Because saying "well God made it that way" and holding that as a personal (not scientific!) belief doesn't deny any of the science at hand.

...of course, if they're trying to get other people to believe that from a scientific perspective, I don't even know what they're trying to prove, so there's that

[(Anonymous)]

na

To me, saying "It's this way because God designed it this way" is a cop-out. It takes away all the pressure of exploring and finding out why things are the way they are, why things happen. It strikes me as wanting to actively not learn beyond a certain point.

[(Anonymous)]

but no matter what in science you're going to reach a point beyond which you can't explain. Why do atoms exist? Why did the Big Bang happen? Why do large objects have gravity?
You can say that the reason that things exist is because God created them, but that has nothing at all to do with wanting to understand HOW the world works and what the extant laws are, and what we can do with them. It's just you who thinks there's no point to anything if there's a God, and that's probably more on you than anybody else.

Science is more about understanding how things work than why, imo.

[diet_poison]

I guess, but it kind of sounds to me like you're determined to read a certain angle into it. Simply saying "I believe God created the universe" doesn't mean anything more than what's on the tin, and it doesn't imply anything about that person's desire to learn more or lack thereof. We're not talking about people using their beliefs to fill in gaps in their scientific understanding; plenty of people simply have spiritual beliefs alongside whatever they understand about science.

[(Anonymous)]

why are we trying to explain the origins of the universe through science?

are we creating a new universe?

I'd rather try to use science to get to Mars instead. Look what happened when we went to the moon, refrigerators, aluminum foil, computers! Tang!

this is getting back to medievalists and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is it really relevant? Does it matter? Not really.

So the dude who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

[chardmonster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Somehow his argument didn't boil down to "because God."

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not upset that people believe in God. I just find the idea that someone can argue that all the science-backed natural laws exist but still claim that there's a supernatural source who just made it look scientific is kind of a wishful thinking, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sort of way of looking at the issue.

[diet_poison]

So you look down your nose at people who believe in God? I don't really get this stance, it's not like it changes the actual science. Obviously you have a different philosophical outlook than I.

[(Anonymous)]

It kind of is because it's pretty much "Life is so amazing that only an awesome divine being could have caused it"

To which people go "Frogs squeeze other frogs to death to mate. Otters rape baby seals to death. Our uteruses are in an arms race against parasitic embryo hijacking so we have to entirely shed lining once a month which can go wrong in all kinda of ways. Our hips are too wide to walk properly because our babies are born too large. Sitting down to poop feels right, but closes off part of our colon and makes it so much harder AND poop gets trapped between our big flappy buttcheeks and has to be cleaned off or it causes all kinda of problems. Our immune systems can attack our own bodies. We are drawn to foods that will kill us over time. Oxygen is toxic and we need it to survive while it slowly kills us."

And the only option is that the divine being that intelligently designed life is a TOTAL DICKHEAD that hates us and enjoys suffering, or nature doesn't care about intelligent design, only what works. If an all powerful all knowing divine being was 100% in charge, why is biology so shitty?