The end of Christianity

[NormATive]

Christianity will continue on and change some more – it is already reduced to entertainment – but creationism is definitely on its last legs. The fools will eventually get fed up of being laughed at.
I don’t know if you will get this video – British TV. Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
One guy here doesn’t seem to know that humans are animals.
“I don't get it, Tyrell. How can it not know what it is?” - Deckard

Interesting video, FF. I did sense a bit of condescension on the part of the host, but the most telling scene was the one with the anthropologist toward the end of the film. He has the members of the caravan arrange human skulls in the order of their progression. It is very difficult indeed to deny the evidence right before your eyes.

NORM

[firstfloor]

Interesting video, FF. I did sense a bit of condescension on the part of the host, but the most telling scene was the one with the anthropologist toward the end of the film. He has the members of the caravan arrange human skulls in the order of their progression. It is very difficult indeed to deny the evidence right before your eyes.

Horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon was a cracker. Phil was completely stumped but it’s just too difficult for him to process the information. All radically new information has the potential to be gut wrenching but creationists have convinced themselves that they will be punished if they give up on their beliefs and so they are really in an almost impossible position. What they are faced with is probably worse than ‘coming out’ for someone who is gay.

[whag]

The denominations with the most liberal social views have seen the sharpest declines in membership and funding.

So conservative Christianity isn't, in fact, dying. Rather liberal Christianity is.

That depends on war, immigration, etc. Eventually, something will have to give.

Unsustainable birth rates mainly have to do with education and demonization of birth control. Without war and immigration, the human cycle of reproduction would continue and still be unsustainable, just as unplanned families continue to be unsustainable here, whether immigrated or not.

If it has been studied, yes.

Overseas Christianity hasn't been studied?

[Cornelius]

Since then, Dembski has specifically rejected evolution, denying some of the weightiest evidence for it (e.g., hominid fossils and primate DNA).

I gotta tell you, I don't have a lot of interest in the evolution-creation debates but....Are those really the "weightiest" pieces of evidence?

A. Hominid fossils - the subjectivity of this, I cannot begin to tell you. Some years ago at an arcade I could have sworn I saw someone whose face looked exactly like a chimp's! I can only imagine how easy it is to "see" a hominid fossil amongst a pile of misshaped human/monkey skeletons (as Answers in Genesis suggests).

B. Primate DNA - well, bananas and humans share 60% of their DNA - I mean what kind of proof is that? Does that make us 60% bananas or vice versa? We have even more water in our bodies: what is it, 70%? Surely you can't base your conclusions on that. And the 1.5-3% difference between humans and chimps is A LOT, whether you think about it or not. Let me put it for you mathematically:

1. Natural genetic mutations occur 1 per 100,000 from bacteria to humans. About 7 are kept per generation in the genome (already an indicator that the degradation of the genome precludes evolution from happening on such a massive scale). Let's raise 7 to 10 out of convenience and higher genetic mutations over millions of years.
2. 1.5% of 3 billion base pairs is 45 million.
3. Gorillas reach puberty ~10 years of age, pretty convenient so 1 generation is 10 years and each generation you get 10 base pairs, so that means it's roughly 1 mutation per year mathematically.
4. Humans and chimps diverged what: 4-5 million years ago? Far shorter from the 45 million needed to achieve the dissonance between humans and other primates. Even if you split the difference down the middle for the hypothetical ancestor, you're still looking at 20+ million missing mutations. Even with gene replication (Dawkins' attempt to resolve this riddle), you still have 20 million missing mutations, and it's unlikely all of it would be explained by gene replication or else it'd be right up there on the list since it'd be pretty obvious.

Correct what is probably wrong, these are just my thoughts on this over the years

[whag]

I gotta tell you, I don't have a lot of interest in the evolution-creation debates but....Are those really the "weightiest" pieces of evidence?

I think so.

A. Hominid fossils - the subjectivity of this, I cannot begin to tell you. Some years ago at an arcade I could have sworn I saw someone whose face looked exactly like a chimp's! I can only imagine how easy it is to "see" a hominid fossil amongst a pile of misshaped human/monkey skeletons (as Answers in Genesis suggests).

What?

B. Primate DNA - well, bananas and humans share 60% of their DNA - I mean what kind of proof is that? Does that make us 60% bananas or vice versa? We have even more water in our bodies: what is it, 70%? Surely you can't base your conclusions on that. And the 1.5-3% difference between humans and chimps is A LOT, whether you think about it or not. Let me put it for you mathematically:

1. Natural genetic mutations occur 1 per 100,000 from bacteria to humans. About 7 are kept per generation in the genome (already an indicator that the degradation of the genome precludes evolution from happening on such a massive scale). Let's raise 7 to 10 out of convenience and higher genetic mutations over millions of years.
2. 1.5% of 3 billion base pairs is 45 million.
3. Gorillas reach puberty ~10 years of age, pretty convenient so 1 generation is 10 years and each generation you get 10 base pairs, so that means it's roughly 1 mutation per year mathematically.
4. Humans and chimps diverged what: 4-5 million years ago? Far shorter from the 45 million needed to achieve the dissonance between humans and other primates. Even if you split the difference down the middle for the hypothetical ancestor, you're still looking at 20+ million missing mutations. Even with gene replication (Dawkins' attempt to resolve this riddle), you still have 20 million missing mutations, and it's unlikely all of it would be explained by gene replication or else it'd be right up there on the list since it'd be pretty obvious.

Correct what is probably wrong, these are just my thoughts on this over the years

The DNA evidence I was thinking about was human chromosome number 2.

What do you think happened? Everything was created fully formed?