How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 25y?

[Further]

Do you think in 25 years, in America specifically, but also around the globe, the same religion v science debates will be going on with the same basic proportions? Or, do you think as science continues to progress, or as the religious win their battles, one or the other side will start gaining territory?

I expect science to continue to encroach on the religious views and make many of those views appear more and more outlandish, turning believers away. However, I am very biased and might not be taking all the right pieces of information into account.

I expect certain areas to become more and more glaring, as science continues to elucidate, such as in climate change. But will that actually have an effect that moves people closer to science and away from a contrarian religious view? I'm not sure, right now, there is certainly plenty of solid scientific data about the fossil record and yet that doesn't seem to sway the devoutly religious.

 

[magnifier661]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

I think there will be a point of awareness when spirituality and science completely work in parallel. Religion is dead.... Once people understand that, we can move forward.

 

[jlprk]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Do you think in 25 years, in America specifically, but also around the globe, the same religion v science debates will be going on with the same basic proportions? Or, do you think as science continues to progress, or as the religious win their battles, one or the other side will start gaining territory?

I expect science to continue to encroach on the religious views and make many of those views appear more and more outlandish, turning believers away.

Don't be so sure about the direction of history. It's gone the opposite direction in the last 50 years. Anti-evolution thoughts were seen as dying then.

 

[santeesioux]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

I think there will be more movies like this released

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/

 

[MarAzul]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Do you think in 25 years, in America specifically, but also around the globe, the same religion v science debates will be going on with the same basic proportions? Or, do you think as science continues to progress, or as the religious win their battles, one or the other side will start gaining territory?

I expect science to continue to encroach on the religious views and make many of those views appear more and more outlandish, turning believers away. However, I am very biased and might not be taking all the right pieces of information into account.

I expect certain areas to become more and more glaring, as science continues to elucidate, such as in climate change. But will that actually have an effect that moves people closer to science and away from a contrarian religious view? I'm not sure, right now, there is certainly plenty of solid scientific data about the fossil record and yet that doesn't seem to sway the devoutly religious.

Science has made zero progress in identifying how the life force started since Darrow and Bryan. You don't really expect a break through for science in the next 90 or 25 years, do you?

 

[Cryptkeeper]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Science has made zero progress in identifying how the life force started since Darrow and Bryan. You don't really expect a break through for science in the next 90 or 25 years, do you?

And how much progress has religion made? (literal question, not intended to prove point)

 

[Further]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Religion is dead.... Once people understand that, we can move forward.

I wonder if it might actually be the exact opposite. People stop believing in God, but become more involved in a religion because it adds a needed component of community and group direction, even if the beliefs are not tightly held. You could be right, I'm just pondering.

 

[Further]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Science has made zero progress in identifying how the life force started since Darrow and Bryan. You don't really expect a break through for science in the next 90 or 25 years, do you?

Progress in all areas of science benefit eachother. As they encourage a rational mind and better understanding all around.

But as far as no progress since Darrow and Bryan, that's just not true. Every fossil found, every new type of dating method, the understanding and sequencing of many genomes and a bunch more have all been progress, mathematical and computer modeling, these and many more scientific works have been progress. They may not have the definitive answer, but science is building a road map to eventually understand the issue fully.

 

[magnifier661]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

I wonder if it might actually be the exact opposite. People stop believing in God, but become more involved in a religion because it adds a needed component of community and group direction, even if the beliefs are not tightly held. You could be right, I'm just pondering.

I think there will always be those that don't believe in a higher power, even if God himself manifested before their eyes. I think the same could be applied towards religion as well.

I just think everything eventually reaches zero, so the evolution of the consciousness may work its way in the middle.

 

[MarAzul]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Progress in all areas of science benefit eachother. As they encourage a rational mind and better understanding all around.

But as far as no progress since Darrow and Bryan, that's just not true. Every fossil found, every new type of dating method, the understanding and sequencing of many genomes and a bunch more have all been progress, mathematical and computer modeling, these and many more scientific works have been progress. They may not have the definitive answer, but science is building a road map to eventually understand the issue fully.

Oh man, fossils have been found, dating improved, no doubt. Heck, this is all most interesting. But I know of nothing enlightening written about out the life force is created. I know of no current experiments attempting the feat. I may have over stated the lack of progress in the past 90 years, perhaps .001 is more accurate than zero.

 

[Further]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Oh man, fossils have been found, dating improved, no doubt. Heck, this is all most interesting. But I know of nothing enlightening written about out the life force is created. I know of no current experiments attempting the feat. I may have over stated the lack of progress in the past 90 years, perhaps .001 is more accurate than zero.

It's not my forte, but the Miller–Urey experiment back in the 50's is a pretty famous experiment that showed that from the "soup" many more complex organic compounds that would be expected if life did come about this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment concerning the experimental abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.

I know that similar experiments are ongoing, but little is expected because the likelihood of life springing forth from any specific experiment is minuscule. But in the theory, we had the conditions on earth, and trillions of chances every day the organic compounds to come together to form the most rudimentary precursors to life. I don't know specifics, but to assume there has been no progress is wrong.

Do I think they will prove it in the next 25 years? I couldn't start to make an assumption either way. I don't have nearly enough information.

 

[MarAzul]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

I don't have nearly enough information.

Yes, you have the same information I do, science has studied many fossils and theorized prolifically on evolution of many species. But they have done very very little to shed light on the how to create the life force.
I love to read all the stuff written by the paleoanthropologist, but the progress on the life force creation is few, even rare.

 

[noknobs]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

I think there will be a point of awareness when spirituality and science completely work in parallel. Religion is dead.... Once people understand that, we can move forward.

Won't happen within 25 years, but this is similar to what I think (hope)

 

[magnifier661]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Won't happen within 25 years, but this is similar to what I think (hope)

Me too

 

[Further]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Yes, you have the same information I do, science has studied many fossils and theorized prolifically on evolution of many species. But they have done very very little to shed light on the how to create the life force.
I love to read all the stuff written by the paleoanthropologist, but the progress on the life force creation is few, even rare.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=MKUwU7nOFoWEogTg24G4Dw&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA

instead of claiming no progress, here are thousands of journal articles on the subject. Each one might only be elucidating a tiny piece of the puzzle, but that's how science works.

I'm not an abiogenesis scholar, but on a quick opening of a few random articles I saw some interesting work.

 

[MarAzul]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=MKUwU7nOFoWEogTg24G4Dw&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA

instead of claiming no progress, here are thousands of journal articles on the subject. Each one might only be elucidating a tiny piece of the puzzle, but that's how science works.

I'm not an abiogenesis scholar, but on a quick opening of a few random articles I saw some interesting work.

Well there you have it. The example of the progress you can point to for the next 25 years. Perhaps Google will improve but that's about it.

 

[MARIS61]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

The debate ended many decades ago.

But it may take forever for all the Flat Earthers to get the memo.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Monkey Scopes Trial

 

[barfo]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

In 25 years? It will be exactly the fucking same.

The plan is: any part of the bible that is proven to be false was always meant to be metaphorical, even though the exact same people were claiming it was literally true right up until (and perhaps beyond the point that) evidence proved otherwise. It's worked fine for 2000 years, no reason it won't work for another 25 years.

barfo

 

[Cryptkeeper]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Science has made zero progress in identifying how the life force started since Darrow and Bryan. You don't really expect a break through for science in the next 90 or 25 years, do you?

Not gonna answer my question...?

 

[MarAzul]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Not gonna answer my question...?

Sorry but I missed your question.

I am not really the expert to answer your question, but heck, I will give it a go.

First of all you can't really speak of religion in general, at least I can't and I have no idea what the progress the Hindus may perceive nor the Buddhist and Islam.

Then when you speak of Christianity, you need to break it down by church since there really is not a Christian religion

So with that in mind, it seems the Catholic church has made much progress in the last few centuries in eliminating the Inquisition and the conversion or die doctrine.

They have also made significant progress in tolerance. The Pope (I forget which) forgave the Jews for killing Jesus. He also allowed, the Jew do indeed have a prior covenant with God
that is still valid, meaning they do not need to accept Jesus as the only way to Heaven.

So it seems, there has been great progress made, perhaps more could come because there are more of us that find the Roman Road too difficult to walk. I think the Hindus, the Buddhist and even some us want to be Christians would appreciate the tolerance of being granted access to heaven by living a good life and following the teachings of Jesus even though we may not be able to say he is God with anymore conviction than the Jew can muster.

Then we have Islam. I would say they need to make some progress or all hell is going to break loose and it isn't far off.

Their book of scripture, the Koran, is the only book of scripture that actually teaches the current day follower intolerance and suggest all manner of despicable act to perform on the intruding infidel. The concept of "Jihad" is only found in Islam. I can not find another similar example in any other scripture of any religion.

Some Christian churches already free it's followers from being required to walk the Roman Road and accept Jesus as God, so in my mind this is progress.

I probably missed or don't even know of some other progress made. But I would say Islam needs to step up and enter the 21st century damn soon. This is the salient progress needed in todays world.

Now if you are asking about progress in the sense of Creation vs evolution, again you cannot speak of religion in general because there is no unified position and never will be. From time to time you find one fool who will give his opinion as a unified position but damned if I know why.
It is never accepted by the evolutionist or all member of any Church or religion. Any opinions in this area are personal and unbinding on any other member of any organisation.

I personal, enjoy reading all information as it comes out about evolution and especially Paleoanthropology. However, it is my personal opinion that this work has not answered how the Life Force fist began. I am not at all sure man ever will have that answer nor will he be able to create life. If I am wrong in this estimate, I will be proven wrong when the first young scientist meets God and he gives the lucky new chosen one the secrets of life.

 

[Eastoff]

Re: How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 2

Their book of scripture, the Koran, is the only book of scripture that actually teaches the current day follower intolerance and suggest all manner of despicable act to perform on the intruding infidel. The concept of "Jihad" is only found in Islam. I can not find another similar example in any other scripture of any religion.
...
I probably missed or don't even know of some other progress made. But I would say Islam needs to step up and enter the 21st century damn soon. This is the salient progress needed in todays world.

I wasn't involved in this conversation, but as a Liberal with different views on many things I just want to say I agree. Far too many Muslim countries impose damaging policies based off the Quran. But to me, this is a good example why we in the US need to keep strong boundaries between ALL religions and government laws and policies.