Why do you personally believe in your religion? (blackneon.net)

submitted 2 weeks ago by King@blackneon.net to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago

I believe in intelligent design because the theory of evolution boils down to: if you left your room messy for 1 billion years, when you came back it would be the Taj Mahal.

The real fundamental root cause of my belief in God comes from personal experiences.

[-] Kraiden@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

What? So first of, it really doesn't. You don't understand evolution if you think that's what it is, but that's beside the point.

You believe that a supernatural sky being made a mud man and a rib woman, who were tricked by a talking snake into eating magic no no fruit. Then 4 thousand years later, a zombie came and made everyone drink it's blood and eat it's body in order to get into the good magic sky place.

It's real easy to dumb down peoples beliefs and make them sound stupid, especially if you misrepresent them.

The question was why do you believe in YOUR beliefs. It was not an invitation to be a superior asshole.

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

As I said, personal experience. I'm not sure how I was insulting anyone else's beliefs. That's literally why I believe in intelligent design: I believe that evolution is mathematically impossible.

[-] skeezix@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you think that the theory of evolution puts forth the any argument like Taj Mahal coming from a messy room, then you don't understand the theory of evolution.

Evolution does not "boil down" to that.

[-] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

You are correct and don't deserve the down votes.

[-] Kacarott@aussie.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

It is insulting because it downplays the theory to the point of "to believe this would be absurd and stupid" which obviously has implications for its believers.

Imagine an atheist stated: "I am an atheist because intelligent design boils down to: if you leave your room empty for 6000 years, a magic fairy will appear and create the Taj Mahal". Can you see how this is not only just an outright false statement, but also making a mockery of those who believe?

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Not really. I don't find that statement insulting at all. That is what Creationism boils down to.

[-] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The analogy to a messy room fails. I recommend you read this (and the rest of the archive, it's great stuff):

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Of note is "The Earth is not a closed system"

Realizing that the root cause is just because you want it to be true is fine, commendable even. Just don't try to justify it post hoc with sciency-sounding arguments.

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I understand that the sun gives low entropy energy to earth, and pockets of entropy can decrease as long as the whole system increases. However, my room exists on earth, so I still think it is an adequate analogy.

More seriously, I would like to see a mathematical treatment of the probability of biologically detrimental mutations vs. beneficial or neutral mutations.

[-] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

That treatment has been done. From the same page:

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

First, I want to thank you for having this discussion with me. I've been wanting to discuss these ideas with someone for some time.

As to the referenced article, a couple of points stand out to me:

The first paper cited by Nachman and Crowell compares pseudogenes between humans and chimpanzees assuming that one evolved from the other over a known period of time. Rejecting the assumption that humans did not evolve from chimps would render this sort of evaluation inaccurate.
The last sentence of the first point, that harmful mutations do not survive long, is not supported by any literature on the page, and I believe it to be wishful thinking. There are many examples of human genetic diseases that do not decrease the reproductive capacity of those carrying them, which to me would imply, again without literature support, that those mutations would accumulate over time in a population.
I would also disagree with the 5th point, where any beneficial mutation disproves young earth creationism. Young earth creationists must believe in a much higher rate of so-called micro evolution, since all the variation we see on earth must have taken place in the last 6 thousand years or less.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 0 points 2 weeks ago

Except the room is entire Earth, it's filled to the brim with most elements of the Periodic table, and constantly receives hundreds of terawatts of energy. Oh, and it actually took several billion years, not one, to come from this to Taj Mahal.

Modern science has shown ways in which many of the organic molecules could be spontaneously formed out of basic elements under conditions observable on early Earth. We're also about to bridge synthesis of organic molecules and synthetic biology.

Intelligent design, on its end, gets stuck with several big questions, like the fact our design is actually very bad, just workable, and the fact we share not only visual properties, but most of our DNA with other animals - particularly other primates.

Not here to alter your beliefs - you do you - but setting the record straight.

[-] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

So the record is, we've never been able to achieve synthetic biology under the most ideal laboratory circumstances?

What do you mean by bad design?

Just because we share DNA with other animals doesn't mean it wasn't by design.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025

12 points (87.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

36026 readers

430 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.