Itoero

There must have been many 'things' that allowed for example the evolution of bipedalism and our kind of intelligence. Biological evolution is about adapting to a changing environment. The environment in Africa was obviously very favorable for human evolution.

No. Again, many of the NT is scientifically impossible. And It's impossible to know which of the scientific possible stories are fiction or non-fiction. We also don't know if those stories are about one person. There were perhaps many interesting characters that did some cool stuff, they then pretended one person did the cool stuff and called it 'Jesus'.

There are many miracles ascribed to Jesus. A lot of the NT is scientifically impossible. It's pretty clear why they wrote it. There was no real person at the heart of the Christian religion.

Also, wave particle duality is in a sense the same as quantum uncertainty. Wave-particle duality is the idea that a quantum object can behave like a wave, but that the wave behaviour disappears if you try to locate the object. (like in the double slit exp) The quantum uncertainty principle is the idea that it's impossible to know certain pairs of things about a quantum particle at once...like the exact position of a particle and its wave-behavior.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf

I would take wave particle duality as main concept.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

The reason why we developed/evolved in/from Africa is because the 'apes' we evolved from, lived in Africa. Other monkeys/apes simply did not evolve into humans. Here you find a list of many fossils they found concerning human evolution and a lot of info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

You answered that question with another question. With 'rationale' you mean 'the reason for having a religion' correct?

Why don't you answer my question? How does the culture you live in dictates the rationale? Don't your parents have a say in that?

Can you give an example of this?

The OP asks 'I would like to know the reasonable arguments for having a religion'. Most people don't choose for their religious belief so they don't have an argument for having a religion.

You misrepresent things. They speculate about things that can go wrong. They don't present as science.

Hours before the rise of the very star it will study, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe launched from Florida Sunday to begin its journey to the Sun, where it will undertake a landmark mission. The spacecraft will transmit its first science observations in December, beginning a revolution in our understanding of the star that makes life on Earth possible. The mission’s findings will help researchers improve their forecasts of space weather events, which have the potential to damage satellites and harm astronauts on orbit, disrupt radio communications and, at their most severe, overwhelm power grids. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-ula-launch-parker-solar-probe-on-historic-journey-to-touch-sun

What is meant with 'infinity'? A hamster can walk infinitely on its running wheel. I'm sorry if this has been asked before.

Ok, but in order to know the rational reason for religion, shouldn't you then have to know how it evolved in? Religion had it's origin probably because religious thought improves social cohesion. The fact that children are hard wired to believe what their parents or educators tell them is probably the main reason why there is stil so much religion. Arguments for having a religion would be imo because it gives spiritual guiding and can improve group cohesion.

Then what's your problem with the article? They observe more nocturnal behavior and speculate about possible bad effects. "The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations."

This might be helpful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

Every thing solves itself, sooner er later. Something else that shows problematic woman emancipation due to religion: "Dr Sosis has also studied modern secular and religious kibbutzim in Israel. … Within religious communities, men are expected to pray three times daily in groups of at least ten, while women are not. … The researchers’ hypothesis was that in religious kibbutzim men would be better collaborators (and thus would take less) than women, while in secular kibbutzim men and women would take about the same. And that was exactly what happened. …"http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.html

Today I learned a group of crows is called a murder. It reminds me of 'The Birds' Hitchcock. http://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/why-is-a-group-of-crows-called-a-murder

Yes but that's not really relevant in this thread. That's related to how religion gains in population and spreads. Yes and this predisposition toward 'faith' is imo an evolutionary trait due the the 'fact' that religious thought(or believing in things that go beyond observable science ) is very likely to be necessary to improve social cohesion. Improving social cohesion grants evolutionary succes for many animals(groups) like wolfepacks, African wild dog packs, killer whales, penguins, zebras....but also for humans....obviously.:) I don't know if the science of this is correct, but they found that secular communes dissolve up to 4 times faster then religious communes. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.html

There is a lot of evidence, that's why they made the article. The effect of humans on ecosystems is well known. There are 'positive' and negative effects.

This probably more accurately describes the heart of the actual essay referenced in the article. We are hardwired to believe in things that go beyond observable science.(since we always travel through time) But that doesn't mean we are hardwired to believe in God(s). ..like they say in the article. This is the complete article I think: https://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

I linked the article because I agree with this statement: "Religious thoughts seems to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities." The article seems to say we are hardwired to believe in God, which I deny since that implies a God that can be related to as a person.(personal God) I rather think we are hardwired to believe in things that go beyond observable science. I immediately think of ietsism.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Something I read an completely agree with: "Religious thoughts seems to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities." https://evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st/

Are you actually incapable of logical thought? Do you really not understand why this is irrelevant? You don't seem to understand. The denial of abiogenesis is for Christians (that deny abiogenesis) causal correlated to the belief in god. A god means most of the times a personal god, a deity who can be related to as a person. I'm pretty sure all people that believe in such a god invent some cosmology related evidence. This evidence is for them causal correlated to the belief in God. So when I ask 'Can you believe in evolution and in God' I basically means 'Can you believe in evolution and in the 'evidence' that makes people believe in God'. It's not as simplistic as that 'diagram' shows.

Yes it is. People that deny abiogenesis do that because they believe in God. People that don't think nature can form the variation of species do this because they believe in God. God is a character in a book, the bible.