Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[truthpaste]

Science doesn't need to reconstruct the connections in the exact same way, it's found a different way of doing it. Not perfect yet, but as you said yourself - we went to the moon on a calculator only 52 years ago so replacement eyes will probably be common in another 52 years https://theconversation.com/artifici...eyes-see-79758

Assuming future success isn't acheivement. And science is a billion miles from producing DNA, yet you still want there to be no programmer for the incredibly mind blowing complexity within DNA?

[lardy]

Assuming future success isn't acheivement. And science is a billion miles from producing DNA, yet you still want there to be no programmer for the incredibly mind blowing complexity within DNA?

But there are things that science (if we must use the word) can produce now that it couldn't in the past, for example cells. So this doesn't seem like a convincing argument.

[delmbox]

Assuming future success isn't acheivement. And science is a billion miles from producing DNA, yet you still want there to be no programmer for the incredibly mind blowing complexity within DNA?

Grasping a bit here aren't you? Where did I say that, or anything close to it?

[Rjk]

Assuming future success isn't acheivement. And science is a billion miles from producing DNA, yet you still want there to be no programmer for the incredibly mind blowing complexity within DNA?

There being a "programmer" raises a lot more questions than it answers. If you don't understand the processes by which simple naturally occurring chemical reactions have turned into increasingly complex life forms over a huge amount of time then thats fine, but adding an even more complex being at the start of it all is not a very satisfying explanation is it? where did that programmer come from? did they evolve from simpler beings? back to single celled pre-god creatures? or did they just pop into existence as a fully formed, all powerful deity?