ronjs

I'm not refering to "magic", which is just human trickery, but God can offer effective, permanent solutions to any problem He so chooses.

The only solution i know of is supernatural , so it would be rejected by many atheists.

Suffering and sorrow are not always totally negative, people who have suffered are most likely to change, some for the better and some for worse. People coming out of a comedy show are more likely to be the same as they were going in, whereas those coming out of a funeral are often changed by the experience because it reminds us of our own mortality. That in no way implies that suffering is an entirely good thing, i , for one hate to see people suffering especially children.

Perceiving the differences is not the problem, it is perceiving them to be inferior that is the root of racism. The differences are really very minor, some have different skin color, some have a little more fatty tissue around the eyes or make bigger noses and so on, none of which makes them inferior. Given equal opportunity, which many are denied for various reasons, anyone can live up to same potential as anyone else and many do. My granddaughter graduated from Yale with a bachelors degree and my grandson graduated with a degree in law from a Canadian university, was their skin color a problem?, you bet it was but they overcame despite their circumstances. Anyone can be the victim of racism or a racist themselves no matter what their skin color or other minor differences.   

So are you an advocate of racism?

??????????????????

How is inferiority demonstrable?

He may not have been a social scientist but his conclusions about race had far reaching effects on social life as racism is reported to have increased at a great rate due to his ( mistaken ) conclusions.

Actually Darwin was reluctant to conclude that different races were inferior but said that his research indicated it. So, racism didn't bias his research, his research  was a cause , or at least a factor involved in his racist view. Also, his research on finches is a matter of one interpretation  of his observations.

yes i have done research and have come up negative, what i was asking is if anyone else knows of something i might have missed in the media or otherwise

My post has nothing to do with Ken Hamm, i haven't visited answers in genesis for 15 or more years, i ask because i have read the many racist comments in Darwin's writings, especially "the descent of man" and wondered if he was a target of the cancel culture.

I have not heard of any statues or images of Darwin being cancelled which is strange considering his racist writings. Maybe i have missed it so if anyone knows of any instances, let me know.

When we leave this world and go to another, either with God or without God. 

Yes

Well, Jesus showed doubting Thomas evidence which indicates to me that blind faith is not required.

We are not really creating anything, just making copies. The original creator of life is the only one with creativity and therefore is the only one who has the right to do what he wants with us. 

The atheists and creationists have the same rocks, fossils , sediments etc.  to interpret, usually based, in part on thier own biases.  

When the creator takes someone out, it's not murder, it's just a change of location. He created us, so he can do what he wants with us.

we all have the same evidence, it's in how you interpret it that is the difference.

Actually, the evidence ( or the interpretation of the evidence has been presented  in this forum numerous times, but it up to the individual to decide which interpretation is more tenable. As for questioning the reliability of scripture, that would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

 It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of  Gods existence and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject, because, i think, they really don't want an answer.

Actually i don't believe there are any contradictions in scripture, but people continually take verses out of context or ignore what comes before or after it and disregard related verses. 

The word "likely" indicates that it is speculative, but Enoch and Elijah didn't taste death but were translated directly to heaven according to scripture.

Some would not taste death, so it is likely some were translated into heaven without going through the dying process.

All living things change to some degree, usually due to environmental conditions, this is built into our DNA by the creator.

 Contrary to what a lawyer might say, physical evidence never speaks for itself, it has to be interpreted, so everyone has to decide for themselves which interpretation to beleive.

Some scientists even fudge their figures to match what their preconceived  conclusions were.

Yes

If one looks up the actual myths you will see that these mythical gods bear little resemblance to Christ. For instance, mithras came after Christ and was born from a rock, not a virgin and he didn t rise from the dead , nor did he have 12 disciples. This just one example but the others are much the same in that they are only slightly similar Christ.

 I am unable to copy and paste links on my tablet. ( no mouse, no physical keyboard) 

Don't know what you are getting at but it sounds as if you are not reading carefully. 

Sorry, but in my experience most people are not really looking for answers, but if they are they will make the effort. 

You can find refutations on the internet, such as cross examined.org,. Here they point out the dissimiarities to Christ.

Most of the claims in the video have refuted long ago

How so? Examples would help.

There is a lot of misinformation concerning these mythical gods, many stories have altered to make Christ look like a copy but they have been refuted easily.

And who decides what is the reasonable interpretation range?

In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them, meaning that he did it in the beginning , not millions of years after. Many experts have an estimate of millions of years, but that doesn't mean they are right and appealing to authority is a logical fallacy anyway, just because someone has a degree it doesn't mean they always know what they are talking about.

 Of course i know an expert as well, who indicates that the universe is maybe 10,000 years old tops, but you will likely discount Him.  

In the beggining , not 6 billion ( or whatever the current age is supposed to be) after the beginning. All evidence is open to interpretation so it's just a matter of which interpretation one chooses to believe. Christian use the geniology list in scripture to estimate how long human life has been around.

Actually you provided more stories, based on one interpretation of the evidence, in fact most scientists use tentative language when reporting their findings, which many, including the media, ignore.

More story telling, saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

Actually, it says, "in the beginning" , if God wanted to indicate deep time, he could have, but a plain reading of Genesis indicates otherwise when taken in context unless one ignores grammatic  rules and tries to for long periods of time into the narrative.

Which verifiable facts might you be referring to, since science cannot totally prove anything.

And nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is millions of years old.

Good story, but that's all it is.

As intelligent as Craig is, he can also be an embarassment to the church.

Well, there had to be a first human, to which everyone else is descended from.

The first life was created, everyone since then are (inexact) copies using the biology that God endowed humans with.

Mothers don't create life, they live it.

There are those who don't believe the rules of grammer (including context) are important but they must be very poor communicators. 

The author of life can take anyone, any time he pleases and because he is the creator of life, it is not murder.

So, it appears that you believe that consensus determines truth.