[ 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

[kitelovesyou]

so, all scientific advancements are random chance occurrences rather than thought out, reasoned products of intelligence?

No? What do you mean by "scientific advancements" anyway? Human discoveries, technological advancements, or?

If you mean "the way the universe changes over time", such as how life evolved on Earth, it's not "random" in the sense of rolling a dice, lulz. Physical principles tend to be fairly predictable on the macro level. If you mean, is it random in the sense of "no one planned it", then yes, you are saying some people think there is no higher being, congratulations.

When you say evolution isn't "provable"... you also mean gravity isn't "provable"? You mean molecular biology isn't "provable"? You mean the technology based on these isn't "provable"? What do you mean by "provable"? Do you mean it's faith-based? Are vaccines faith-based? Open heart surgery? Nuclear weapons? Rockets to the moon? Selective breeding? Genetic engineering?

I'm confused, because you're not expressing yourself very well with your purported superior logic. You talk about science in a pure form separate from religion, but then you talk of science as a faith on a par with creationism.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm talking about the difference with the guy in the bathtub versus say the nuclear bomb project. one was an intuitive leap of logic by random chance and the other was a group of guys getting together and applying their minds to the problem.

aren't we talking about advancements in science as it relates to science fiction such as warp drives, laser guns and shrink rays or the ways we apply science and study the world around us, because now I'm officially confused! The OP is seemingly saying to me that you can't understand warp drives or the scientific method if you don't believe in order out of chaos possibly by accident and natural selection that may have worked very fast or very slow.

As for your examples... We didn't create how the molecule works. We can study how it works but we didn't create it. We create things like cars and microwave ovens and sadly, bombs.

My understanding is that anything that starts with "In the beginning..." is religion because you have to have faith in whether or not it happened. And look at this thread, look at the way people talk about evolution, it is with the same fervor as people talk about religion. I can't see the difference anymore.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

My understanding is that anything that starts with "In the beginning..." is religion...

Your understanding of religion is equally impoverished to your understanding of biology and chemistry.

Molecules (in the general case) and microwaves have not been directly observed either. Their existence is inferred indirectly. Just like biological evolution.

[kitelovesyou]

Ohh so they're trying to say if you didn't see it happen yourself God did it? *scratches head*

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That's my impression.

I was going to add that one application to SF is that Warp Drives are a bit of handwavium around Special and General Relativity. General Relativity is difficult to reconcile with a static universe. Therefore, General Relativity supports Big Bang cosmology with a history of billions of years. The guy who figured that out was a Roman Catholic priest.

[kitelovesyou]

I got so sad as a kid when I realised the possibility of warp drives weren't currently supported by scientific theory. I want my FTL travel!

[kitelovesyou]

I'm talking about the difference with the guy in the bathtub versus say the nuclear bomb project. one was an intuitive leap of logic by random chance and the other was a group of guys getting together and applying their minds to the problem.

Whaaaaaat. I assume you are referring to Archimedes? You understand there's a difference between scientific theory and the application of scientific theory to technology? I think you don't, because you talk about "advancements in science".

Assuming you think the latter should be more like the former, you also understand that there are many ways humans have arrived at a scientific theory?

I ...really don't understand what central points you're trying to make in your comments. I thought we were talking about proof? But you're now talking about designing molecules? What has that got to do with proof? You think believing in scientific theories and scientific methodology is "fervour"? Um?