The Subject is Religion

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   
   With the progress of postmodern life through science & technology, will religion become a thing of the past?  Why?  Why not?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, there will be religious museums opening their doors soon enough.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Man will always believe in something because there will always be the unknown. Man will always seek to know more. Science may become the new religion. In which case, when they run out of answers that fit neatly, time to bring God back. Such is the nature of humanity.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         No. If you think in terms of Science, when you run out of answers, you need to go back to the first principles and find the missing piece of the puzzle. Once science or let's just say logic triumphs, it's very unlikely that man would go back to believing in a supernatural power.
         
         You could believe that we are all in a simulation, but the person who is simulating us has not created morals for us to live by and he never came down to give them to us.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry. I said yes, and I meant yes. The knowledge obtained from science is temporary, thusly, subject to change over time. Yet, God keeps being there. We fill in the unknown with superstition and myths. We also build religions. I stand by my statement because history has shown it to be so. Yes. Yes. Yes.
            However, you can keep your views. It doesn't change anything.

            replyreport
         2. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, about that simulation - no one was there to report on that He might have been giving the characters directions. Surely, we know that's what programmers do.

            replyreport
   3. 50

      Frank Menchiseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Religions will continue to exist, because we believe in  gods and spirituality, it has been so since the beginning of recorded times. Now spirituality cannot be seen, but our minds will continue to believe in that. So, religions need to be become modified, in a way that they don't clash with science.

      replyreport
   4. 82

      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Religions traditionally die out. They don't last much more than 3000 years. but there are always people that believe just about anything. There are still pagans around, people that believe in Greek and Egyptian gods etc.
      
      Atheism is growing which means religion is shrinking. And eventually non-belief will become the majority. But religions/beliefs will likely always exist in small diverse groups in some form or other.
      
      Christianity is well on the way out now that people are sick of the institutions that hold it together.. Islam is about 600 years behind.  I give it another couple hundred years slowly declining.

      replyreport
   5. 81

      peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You don´t need a god any more to explain the universe or life. But religion has also a social function. And it´s because of this social function that it still holds power.
      If this social function is replaced as well religion as we know it will cease to exist.
      Or more probably, religions change and "evolve", there used to be thousands of gods, now most believers believe in one god. Religion is not rigid, it changes slowly. and its stories and its practise too.
      People believe in stories. stories without evidence or backup are easily accepted if they fulfil a purpose.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   You'd have to define religion. If it is simply a belief in God. No. It will persist throughout human history. If defined as institutions wielding power over people, I'd say no again. I don't see Islam taking a back seat to science and technology in the near,or distant, future.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Islam is just 2k years old. Humans are going to be here for a very long time. Also, I have friends from Iran, none of them are believers, they also say that most of their generation are non-believers and only have to act as they believe due to the regime. Of course, there are many believers, but it's not something that isn't going to go with time.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That may be so. But as long as theocracies exist religion will remain a powerful force for some people. I don't see regime change on the horizon. And those countries appear to go back and forth between attempts at some semblance of democracy and all out theocracies.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            True, but never before in the history of mankind was there a time when religion existed but people didn't believe in it. Ireland is a good example. It will not happen in our lifetimes, but saying that it won't in the history of mankind is not a logical statement considering the trend we already see.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What trend do you see? As I said. Define religion. By one definition it will be a part of society until such time as we have answered every question about the entire universe. I don't see that happening. Define it another way and you'll have to pull Islam out of the dark ages. That won't happen in our lifetime.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The trend in people not believing in an entity that is above them, one that we cannot see, yet exists and controls all of us. One that has set up our destinies, yet says we have free will.
                  
                  Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
                  
                  No, you do not need a God to be the answer for unanswered questions. For those of you who do believe in a God, this can be hard to fathom. But, just yesterday (scale of mankind on this planet) the Earth was considered flat, but today we know the truth (most of us). Also, today we know that if there is something that is unknown, it is just because we have not understood it yet. Some attribute this to God, not everyone. A growing number of people attribute this to our lack of knowledge.
                  
                  For many generations to come there will be a belief in God. It will eventually go down to zero and there will be something else people would put all their faith in. Their karma on social networks is something that seems to be replacing the worship that was carried out in Churches, Temples, and Mosques. It's impossible to say what people would worship, but it is very unlikely that they will worship something in the sense of religion, the supernatural phenomena.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     It's important to note that Gestalt theory on human cognition indicates we do make up pieces to fill the "puzzle" out. It's what we do as humans. We will never have all of the answers. We make up parts when we don't. That's human nature. How else do you explain the idiotic behaviors of people toward others they have never met, had a conversation with, or even thoroughly read about? They make things up.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        That's true, but the OP asks about the future of mankind. You can't say for sure that there will not be a new system in place that is not a religion 100,000 years from now. All I am trying to say is that in 2000 years a lot has changed, imagine what could happen over the course of time man is on the planet.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Ye, and Gestalt theory has been tested and proven valid. My answer was in relationship to the question. And the answer is we will do what we have proven we do over and over again. Look at the whole of what I've said don't miss the whole because the small part throw you off. My statement still stands.

                           replyreport
3. 97

   Bede le Venerableposted 5 years ago

   The question amounts to this, “Will science and technology replace God?” The story of worldwide religion is the impulse to quench an infinite thirst that science and technology (art, music, entertainment, etc.) are evidently incapable of quenching. These things satisfy for some time then we get bored. As St. Augustine said, “You have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”
   
   Can science and technology augment religion? I say, “undoubtedly.”

   replyreport
4. 61

   Erudite Scholarposted 5 years ago

   Religion is a man-made construct. It can go out of fashion anytime. People are becoming less religious and more spiritual. Science competes with religion to answer mankind's questions. While religion is based on faith, science is based on fact. What do you believe?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And even the facts science holds dear fall out of fashion. String theory, the world was round, people cannot travel more than 20 miles per hour.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         None of these were ever science. These were all theories. There's a difference between scientific fact and theory. Science can not go out of fashion. But kids do grow up and forget about their imaginary friends.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Indeed, HP colleague. Point taken.

            replyreport
         2. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            They were accepted as unproven as the way the world was. We forget imaginary friends until we neejd to make them up.

            replyreport
   2. 97

      Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Erudite - Every generation sets up a counterfeit god in place of God. It’s the perennial sin of idolatry. In the 18th century, it was the god of reason; in the 19th century, it was the gods of capitalism, learning, and science; in the 20th century, it was communism, capitalism, pop music, drugs, sports; the idols in our century are technology and science. Can they succeed in replacing the infinite God? Is religion falling out of fashion?
      
      Probably not anytime soon, as the statistics show otherwise - 84% of the world’s population belong to a religious group. 
      
      Science is wonderful and I love it, but for me, it points directly back to the first cause of all that exists, namely God.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         84% is a botched up number. In India only this week did someone manage to get a certificate saying that they are not associated to any religion after a lifetime of struggle (literally). India makes up 1/7th of the worlds population and everyone there is forced to be on paper the religion they were born into.
         
         Iranians are forced to be Muslim, when people in my generation who I have met say that around 30 - 40% are atheists but cannot take away their association officially because it is banned by the religion.
         
         I am in no way saying that a majority today does not believe in some sort of divine power. I am saying that those numbers are botched up.

         replyreport
         1. 97

            Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I suppose we can't put our faith in statistics, but there are definite trends. In some places where Christianity was strong, such as in western Europe, the numbers are going down whereas in parts of Africa and Asia, it's growing fast. Islam also is growing very fast.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               True. Islam is also falling in Turkey and Iran from the local perspective of the handful of friends that I have from these regions.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yet, religions gain in other areas of the world. Religion will not disappear and it will keep changing, like facts. You may not need a God when the facts don't match, but we certainly have a talent for bringing one along when it suits us. My statement is still valid from the beginning of this forum.

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Obviously there is no right or wrong to a theoretical question. I never said you were wrong. Yes your statement stands.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Obviously, I meant more than "theoretical. I meant historical. Read the post. You proved my point: people misinterpret and fill in the gaps. It's "h-i-s-t-o-r-y."

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           But we are talking about the future.

                           replyreport
                        2. 94

                           Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           It's a proven scientific fact: the truest indicator of future performance is shown through observing past actions. Historically, humanity has created gods of all kinds when the need arises. That's not theory; it's fact.
                           Even Science may become a "religion." Imagine: Holy Metric System, Praises to the Carbon Molecule.
                           In any case, we approach science in different ways. The "scientific method" is not how all scientists conduct research. Replication is practically impossible for an astronomer. Physicists make "educated" guesses before smashing those particles. Geologists must consider various variables when discussing "facts" about our Earth. Where there is room to guess, there is room for errors. In fact, in statistics, we must account for "error" in data sets.

                           replyreport
                           1. 97

                              Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              “If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” -Richard Feynman
                              
                              Let’s face it; even evolution has plenty of assumptions mixed into the bag. It's not pure fact by any stretch.

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 It is fact though, the similarities and the changes in the DNA strands on chromosomes say so.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 97

                                    Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Perhaps, but can scientists create self-replicating DNA that has a blueprint for life? DNA amounts to information, which only a programmer can put into a sensible order. It’s sort of like saying HP emerged through random bits of information floating about the web. As brains put this complex operation together, only a mastermind could possibly piece together random information to create the universe and life as we know it.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 88

                                       lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       This is where the principle of chance comes into play. Why would God create a universe so huge if we are all on one tiny planet?

                                       report
                                       1. 60

                                          Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          You think life only exists in earth?

                                          report
                                          1. 88

                                             lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Not me. The person who says that life is programmed by God.

                                             report
                                       2. 94

                                          Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          "Chance" isn't a principle, it's a fact. Everything involves chance. This means, right now, mortality is probably the most definite thing of all.

                                          report
                                          1. 88

                                             lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Okay, answer the second question in the same comment?

                                             report
                                             1. 94

                                                Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                It bothers you that I'm not obligated to do but what I want? Pitiful.

                                                report
                                    2. 97

                                       Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       I did not say there wasn’t life on other planets. I’m skeptical about it but I’d like to know your thoughts on the subject.

                                       report
                                    3. 94

                                       Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Superb!

                                       report
                                 2. 94

                                    Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yet, scientists have only recently verified that many of European descent carry the funky "Neanderthal genes," responsible for some of the biggest autoimmune diseases known to man. It's a fact they didn't know where the "junk" DNA in this population came from, and they thought it belonged to all humankind.
                                    Wrong. People of African descent do not carry this stuff. Assumptions changed to a verified fact. That's what science does so well.
                                    But did these facts or any facts regarding human evolution crush tribal superiority beliefs? No. Having the knowledge does not shake the foundations of beliefs. That's why religion will remain into the foreseeable future.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 94

                                 Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Exactly. We agree. Where there is room to guess, there is error which can lead to errors.
                                 My goodness! Look at James Watson. Brilliant, but flawed in his assumptions which are not based on science.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 97

                                    Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Assumptions are not always bad; they work both ways. Scientist’s began to assume that the universe had a beginning and now it’s universally accepted. Various facts help to support it. On the other hand, science assumed that there must be complex life beyond earth given the number of galaxies. This assumption gained huge momentum when I was a boy in the 70’s. (Carl Sagan era) Unfortunately, science has reduced this hypothesis to reasonably improbable, as far as I can tell.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 88

                                       lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Not true. Life on other planets is not improbable, the fact that we as humans will come across it is improbable considering the vastness of the expanding universe and our limitations.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Those many folks that have been probed would disagree with you!
                                          
                                          But seriously, you're setting aside both future capabilities and the possibility of ET coming to knock on the door.  I think it is far too early in the game to declare it "improbable" that man will never find a sentient species originating anywhere but earth.  And if it's "life" rather than "sentience", well, we WILL explore this system one day, and guesses that there is alien life in our own system are growing.

                                          report
                                          1. 88

                                             lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Improbable does not imply impossible or would never happen It just means the probability is low.

                                             report
                                             1. 95

                                                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                Understood.  I just disagree, that's all, and think that it is far to early to make that conclusion, especially if it's life, not intelligent life, that is under consideration.
                                                
                                                I'd agree that it is extremely improbable in my lifetime, but in the next 100 or 200 years?  Not nearly so much.

                                                report
                                                1. 88

                                                   lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I just realized I didn't mention our lifetime. I definitely meant our lifetime. I thought I typed that in because, well, I thought that.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 95

                                                      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Ah!  Then we have no disagreement at all, for I very highly doubt we'll find ET life in the next few decades.  Possible but highly improbable, just as you said.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 94

                                                         Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                                         I agree. Not in our life time, but if we do ... and they are smart like Brainiacs, Welcome the Gods!
                                                         Maybe not.
                                                         Maybe something like the Borg will show up and this is all irrelevant.

                                                         report
                                    2. 94

                                       Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Assumptions can be the start of science, but Watson, in this case, followed his brilliant research with assumptions about various minorities based on his inaccurate measurements of skulls. (Similar to Nazi thinking.) So even armed with the tools to conduct credible research with credible findings, we still come up with conclusions not related to the data or we misinterpret the data.
                                       
                                       Good assumptions (a hypothesis) precedes good scientific research, but reliable interpretation of the data must be applied.
                                       Otherwise, humans may think themselves gods; Oh, yeah, we been there before! Unfortunately, we probably will go there again.

                                       report
                                    3. 97

                                       Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Brandon - Your endorsement of potential life “out there,” ultimately rests on this assumption: there are billions of galaxies, hence life must exist, - and therefore, we just need time. There’s nothing wrong with this assumption, but the factors for complex life (not microbial life), preclude great swaths of the universe. Can life emerge outside the parameters that make life possible on earth? I’m heavily doubtful.

                                       report
                                       1. 88

                                          lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          There would be similar parameters with higher chances than the chances of finding life. There are some planets (32) or so in close proximity that very likely fit the requirements. I thought we were talking about life not complex life?

                                          report
                                    4. 81

                                       peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       you combine two assumptions. One that is not an assumption but a fact, (the universe had a beginning)
                                       the other one is not an assumption either but a speculation. (about life somewhere else in the universe)
                                       It´s a way to discredit the fact that through scientific methods we now know when the universe started and how it evolved. End even how it started.
                                       Be careful how and what you compare with each other.

                                       report
                                 2. 97

                                    Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Could you define life? Also, are you counting the exoplanets of Trappist-I among those 32 planets?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 94

                                       Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       That's beyond the scope of this forum.

                                       report
                                    2. 88

                                       lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       All planets outside the solar system are termed exoplanets. Yes, some of them are around the Trappist-I. It's 49 not 32: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-e … ts-catalog and these are just what we've found so far and we have observed under 1% of the night sky and that's looking for galaxies and not planets, not even 50% of the solar system has been mapped, for instance.
                                       
                                       Matter that glows makes up ~4% of the Universe. We don't have a high-resolution map of the other 96%. Dark matter distribution is reconstructed using lower-resolution, but reasonably accurate techniques.
                                       
                                       Darwinian evolution on a molecular scale would constitute life, i.e. the imperfect replication of molecules that contain information allowing them to transition from the non-living to the living and from chemistry to bio-chemistry.

                                       report
         2. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And we will continue to believe.

            replyreport
5. 97

   Bede le Venerableposted 5 years ago

   I brought the discussion over here – I’m weary of working through all those replies.
   
   I’m glad that you hinted at carbon-based life, as we know on earth. Some propose that life elsewhere in the universe doesn’t need to be carbon-based. For instance, it could be silicon based. That seems plain crazy to me.
   
   Anyway, when searching for life outside of earth, any serious astrobiologist looks for planets that could support carbon-based life. As such, they have a checklist (typically of about twenty parameters) that makes this life possible. Those factors include the location of the planet within the galaxy. Planets that are too close to the center or extremity of the galaxy have little chance to support life.
   
   Of course, one of the first features required is liquid water. Sure, the planets around Trappist 1 have water but it’s apparently too much…  https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomento … t-1-water/ 
   
   In any event, astrobiologists postulate the chance of life based on these factors through various equations. For instance, one suggests that the chances are 1 in a quadrillion that another planet has just one tenth of all of earth’s ideal factors! There’s also the Drake Equation, which looks at the possibility of life from a different angle.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Are you referring to me when you say I'm glad you hinted at carbon-based life? I didn't mention carbon, no. Also, Si based life is a possibility. This idea stems from C and Si having very similar properties, being in the same column of the periodic table. Si based life would according to those theories breathe in Sulphur against Oxygen that we breathe (again same  column)

      replyreport
      1. 97

         Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         To me, silicon based life is too strange to fathom. Do you propose aliens and plants made out of amethyst or sandstone?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Not really, that's like asking me if I imagine life on Earth being made out of graphite and diamond which are also pure carbon, the building block of life on Earth.

            replyreport
            1. 97

               Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If it’s predominantly silicon, then it becomes rocky when mixed with oxygen. Perhaps it could remain flexible on hot planets though.
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That's the point right, these planets do not have oxygen. They would have mainly sulphuric compounds in their environment.

                  replyreport
   2. 81

      peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If you want to know how life started on earth and how it evolved from chemical reactions to RNA and DNA strings I would advise you to read a brilliant book by Nick Lane called The Vital Question.
      
      if you look at how life started on earth you have more chance to look at the right spot outside earth.
      
      the question of intelligent life is a complete different question.
      The question of alien religions too. Would they worship gods too? with alien characteristics?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Tim Truzy info4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting. Thanks for bringing us back on track. I suspect they would or see themselves as gods compared to us, assuming they are intelligent.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think if there are aliens they will be utterly and complete alien.
            intelligence you have in many forms. If they would have a religion and believe in a higher being, the image would be in their "image".
            Just like men created gods and god in their form.
            In most scifi movies aliens are humanized. but that' s a simplification.
            The chances are that aliens won´t have any god/gods just like a butterfly is in no need to have a god/gods

            replyreport
      2. 97

         Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Amino acids cannot assemble themselves into proteins without precise instructions; they need DNA to form into specific chains. Yet, chemicals by themselves cannot create these instructions. Likewise, there can be no self-replicating organisms without DNA. This is where the theory of chemical evolution runs into an impenetrable wall.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Amino acids cannot assemble themselves into proteins without precise instructions"
            
            Why not?  We can make them in a lab; all it takes is a similar environment and they can make themselves.  It's not as if we sew them together with needle and thread; it is chemical reactions that do all the work.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly

               replyreport
            2. 97

               Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Whatever you’ve created in the lab used DNA to guide the process; I think it's called transcription.

               replyreport
         2. 81

            peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As I said, an interesting book to read from biochemist Nick Lane is The Vital Question. He explains how life was formed in hot water shafts deep in the ocean.
            The science and proof is there, all you need is to read it.

            replyreport
            1. 97

               Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If you have the book, would you please give me a brief synopsis of his explanation? Remember that chemicals are inert and haven't the know-how to build proteins. If it were otherwise, we could build cells.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  you can find a synopsis online. Just Google Nick Lane the Vital Question
                  Probably better explained then I can.
                  Chemicals aren´t inert when they get energy. they change and interact with other chemicals.
                  Chemicals do not have the know how to build proteins, neither do I, but some people who studied proteins know how to make them.
                  It looks a bit strange if you give chemicals, molecules or even animals humans characteristics. in a storyline it would be great, like a fable, but not when you talk about facts.
                  
                  There are a lot of youtube videos with Nick Lane giving talks. have a look.
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av98Brx23_4

                  replyreport
                  1. 97

                     Bede le Venerableposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     OK, I’ll look up Nick Lane. Yes, chemicals react to each other – that’s not my point. Rather, chemicals are inert in the sense that by themselves, they cannot produce proteins for building cells without instructions. Like an architect for a building, it needs a blueprint. This may sound strange, but it’s the reality. This is the job of DNA. Here’s a useful pdf from the National Human Genome Research Institute on the subject…
                     https://www.genome.gov/pages/education/ … nt3to4.pdf
                     
                     The bigger question is where do the instructions come from? That’s the enigma for chemical evolutionists.

                     replyreport
6. 84

   bhattucposted 5 years ago

   Religion has a very deep foundation in the various communities albeit in different forms. Every society has religious people as well as atheist in it.
   
   I do not think that technological advancements will subdue the religious spirits in the world.
   
   Another point is that the religious leaders and clergymen will always try that religions should flourish so that their jobs are secured. It is question of their livelihood and career. They can't get other job.
   
   So the issue is socio-political cum religious and it is going to be there till eternity.

   replyreport