5 ms·

I'm switching back to religion. I used to not believe but after the pandemic and researching the immune system, I don't believe that a complex system like simpl

I'm switching back to religion. I used to not believe but after the pandemic and researching the immune system, I don't believe that a complex system like simply the immune system can be not only created by chance but can be spread across an entire population. There are many components of the immune system and even the endocrine system that requires things to be designed together, not randomly across millions of years and I've decided that we were designed at some point because it's too perfectly intertwined across different body parts.

candiddevmike 2y ago
It's unfortunate that your research led you to religion instead of learning more about evolution
- cde-v 2y ago
  It didn’t. Just typical religious lies about how various things are too complex to have been “random”. The use of the word random gives it away.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Be a little kind, won't you? It's always an occasion of sorrow to see someone turn his face from the world, and certainly I'm not prepared to assume myself immune to the same pitiable fate.
    - sepositus 2y ago
      I'm sure being mercilessly mocked is a contributing factor to these statistics.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        Never underestimate the shamefully desperate desire of those who grew up being stuffed into lockers to find whom they may themselves stuff into other, presumably smaller and more easily closing, lockers of their own.
- kulahan 2y ago
  This is such an incoherent response. Evolution and creationism are absolutely in sync. Do you think it’s somehow beyond the reach of an omnipotent/omniscient being to set up an evolutionary chain? Many, many scientists start gravitating back towards religion. I’ll never understand the cocky approach with this topic.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    Who are these many many scientists? Real science I mean. For a physicist for instance, being in god is symptomatic of a mental disease, probably multiple personalities disorder -- because these two concepts cannot live together in one brain that believes both.
    - kulahan 2y ago
      It is explicitly anti-science to pretend you have any true idea what is outside the universe, friend. We can guess at it of course, but you’d have to be extremely early on in your education to think “the tool that explores the universe” is somehow incompatible with “something explicitly not inside the universe”.
      - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
        I am indeed early in my education (I am an engineer and have a PhD in physics) but from what I know, science, roughly speaking says - "we know what we know". And what we know, we know it by thinking out some models and matching them with experimental data. If the model fits, it is good enough for now. What we cannot model or measure yet - we do not know. Plain and simple. We do not try to push an agenda of a deity of some sort which did all of that and therefore the "explanation" is that god is great. We admit that we do not know and, hopefully, we will know at some point but before then we do not put ourselves in the comfortable shade of someone sitting on a cloud in the sky who know it all (but does not want to share :))
        kulahan 2y ago
drowsspa 2y ago
If we were designed then it was a very sloppy designer. We can easily think of a myriad of ways it could have been done better. And quite mischievous to just leave all this evidence of evolution. I think that the gnostics with the idea of a malevolent creator god would fit our world better.
- sepositus 2y ago
  To play devil's advocate, are we at a state where you can confidently say the design is sloppy? I feel it's akin to looking at an incomplete puzzle and judging it prematurely.
  - squigz 2y ago
    When you look at the robustness of complex systems we design (i.e., IT systems) vs the robustness of the human body, I think it is at least fair to say it could be designed better.
    - sepositus 2y ago
      This seems to propose that IT systems deal with the sheer amount of variability a living organism has to contend with on a daily basis. I don't think it's a fair comparison. At Google (as an SRE), a large portion of my work was trying to understand problems that people have never even comprehended due to the sheer scale we operated at. Reading through code, I would often scratch my head at some decisions, only to later find out it had a really good reason often associated with some high-level incident. I feel the same can be said for biology. Just because it doesn't immediately fit into our theoretical understanding doesn't mean it was designed poorly.
      - squigz 2y ago
        > This seems to propose that IT systems deal with the sheer amount of variability a living organism has to contend with on a daily basis. I don't think it's a fair comparison. Might they not? I think measuring such things would be near impossible, but a human body does interact with a generally specific set of variables on a day-to-day basis, and breaks down when new variables are introduced - like when you travel to a new place and pick up a local bug that you have to get used to. At least IT systems can generally disregard variables they don't recognize.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
selimthegrim 2y ago
Somatic hypermutation is evidence of a loving God to you?
- warmedcookie 2y ago
  I don't see God or loving in his response. Maybe they believe in sadistic aliens from millions of big bangs ago?

candiddevmike 2y ago

It's unfortunate that your research led you to religion instead of learning more about evolution

cde-v 2y ago
It didn’t. Just typical religious lies about how various things are too complex to have been “random”. The use of the word random gives it away.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Be a little kind, won't you? It's always an occasion of sorrow to see someone turn his face from the world, and certainly I'm not prepared to assume myself immune to the same pitiable fate.
  - sepositus 2y ago
    I'm sure being mercilessly mocked is a contributing factor to these statistics.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      Never underestimate the shamefully desperate desire of those who grew up being stuffed into lockers to find whom they may themselves stuff into other, presumably smaller and more easily closing, lockers of their own.
kulahan 2y ago
This is such an incoherent response. Evolution and creationism are absolutely in sync. Do you think it’s somehow beyond the reach of an omnipotent/omniscient being to set up an evolutionary chain? Many, many scientists start gravitating back towards religion. I’ll never understand the cocky approach with this topic.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  Who are these many many scientists? Real science I mean. For a physicist for instance, being in god is symptomatic of a mental disease, probably multiple personalities disorder -- because these two concepts cannot live together in one brain that believes both.
  - kulahan 2y ago
    It is explicitly anti-science to pretend you have any true idea what is outside the universe, friend. We can guess at it of course, but you’d have to be extremely early on in your education to think “the tool that explores the universe” is somehow incompatible with “something explicitly not inside the universe”.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      I am indeed early in my education (I am an engineer and have a PhD in physics) but from what I know, science, roughly speaking says - "we know what we know". And what we know, we know it by thinking out some models and matching them with experimental data. If the model fits, it is good enough for now. What we cannot model or measure yet - we do not know. Plain and simple. We do not try to push an agenda of a deity of some sort which did all of that and therefore the "explanation" is that god is great. We admit that we do not know and, hopefully, we will know at some point but before then we do not put ourselves in the comfortable shade of someone sitting on a cloud in the sky who know it all (but does not want to share :))
      - kulahan 2y ago

drowsspa 2y ago

If we were designed then it was a very sloppy designer. We can easily think of a myriad of ways it could have been done better. And quite mischievous to just leave all this evidence of evolution. I think that the gnostics with the idea of a malevolent creator god would fit our world better.

sepositus 2y ago
To play devil's advocate, are we at a state where you can confidently say the design is sloppy? I feel it's akin to looking at an incomplete puzzle and judging it prematurely.
- squigz 2y ago
  When you look at the robustness of complex systems we design (i.e., IT systems) vs the robustness of the human body, I think it is at least fair to say it could be designed better.
  - sepositus 2y ago
    This seems to propose that IT systems deal with the sheer amount of variability a living organism has to contend with on a daily basis. I don't think it's a fair comparison. At Google (as an SRE), a large portion of my work was trying to understand problems that people have never even comprehended due to the sheer scale we operated at. Reading through code, I would often scratch my head at some decisions, only to later find out it had a really good reason often associated with some high-level incident. I feel the same can be said for biology. Just because it doesn't immediately fit into our theoretical understanding doesn't mean it was designed poorly.
    - squigz 2y ago
      > This seems to propose that IT systems deal with the sheer amount of variability a living organism has to contend with on a daily basis. I don't think it's a fair comparison. Might they not? I think measuring such things would be near impossible, but a human body does interact with a generally specific set of variables on a day-to-day basis, and breaks down when new variables are introduced - like when you travel to a new place and pick up a local bug that you have to get used to. At least IT systems can generally disregard variables they don't recognize.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

selimthegrim 2y ago

Somatic hypermutation is evidence of a loving God to you?

warmedcookie 2y ago
I don't see God or loving in his response. Maybe they believe in sadistic aliens from millions of big bangs ago?