ronjs

well everything could be considered "  a fact or situation which is observed to happen" but all i'm saying is that there's no real mystery to it. People accept Christ for a number of reasons,  just like people decide atheism is the way to go for various reasons.

 People become set in their ways from their  youth by holding on to beliefs  and ideas acquired through various means. Myself i know i retain many things from my teenage years, including the music i like and at least some of the attitudes i had back then.

 There are many people who cry out to a God on thier death bed , but often it is a nonspecific God  so whether they become Christian is questionable.

For me, it was the evidence  from fulfilled  prophesy and the lack of evidence for any alternative to ceation by an intelligent creator.

Maybe you could rephrase the question, as i don't see any mystery about this phenomenon. It is most often young adults who turn to Christ because the older we get the more set in our ways we become and are less likely to become Christians. Deathbed conversions are extremely rare.

Having Christianity foisted  upon you does not make you a Christian, it is an  individual decision  once one is at the age of understanding.

As far as origins is concerned  the two are obviously contradictory

can't speak for everyone but i  have never used terror tactics to teach my children about anything 

By teaching them that their actions  bring consequences  whether it be from lying or any other wrong doing. Teaching about hell does not need to be terrifying for them.

How you teach them about hell  is more important.

It goes without saying and most people know that science refers to the scientific community.

Any scientist can attest that science cannot prove anything since they can never be sure they have all the evidence,many facts iin science have been overturned by the discovery of new evidence and this is why scientists almost always use tentative language when reporting  their findings.

Racism is wrong and people who discriminate against any group of people are wrong. Don't see your point.

Never said that science or scientists believe Darwin to be racist and that would be an appeal to authority, but his various writings speak for themselves.

Nature is not racist, it does not discriminate who or what it kills and it is not always the strongest that survives. Racism is a human concept since there is no biological basis for race, we are all humans with the same blood the same DNA structure and only really minor differences in outward appearance.

Read Darwin's books and letters, it is clear he meant favoured races, it is even in the full title of his most famous book.

Ithinkyou missed something, I said science is racist if

It is racist, because it is untrue.

Actually, I think the  cancel culture is ridiculous, although I don't care about statues,

If science believes what Darwin believed about' favoured races' then ,yes, science is racist.

 With all the statues and images being destroyed I haven't heard about any Darwin images being cancelled.His books and other writings are about as racist as anything I've read.

Reading and understanding are two different things . Most atheists objections indicate that they don't understand  grammar, or read very carefully.

Do atheists read theirs?

Only the true vine (John 15)

Well, revelation 22.2 says the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations , so it would not be  surprise that medicines are present in plant material and many ,if not all medicines are derived originally  from natural sources.

If  the natural order was  different every day how could one formulate anything lasting?

Couldn't do science in a chaotic universe.

Since all my posts are pro- Christian it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what I consider to be myths and the one  I don't.

Most, if not all of these have been refuted, for those who are open minded enough to search.

A 4 sided triangle would not be a triangle, and why would God make something he couldn't lift, this kind of thinking is just grabbing at straws.

So, no evidence, just asserting a perceived absolute. 

  If you can't prove that atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist and theists can't prove that God does exist then how is it a truism.

Is this some kind of reply to someone?????

It could also be part of the birth pangs leading up to the tribulations.

If God didn't have  all these attributes, he wouldn't be much of a God.

The plain reading of Genesis does not support the "Gap Theory" or "Progressive creationism" and reads as nothing other than real  history and it takes grammatical acrobatics to make it say otherwise. Jesus also only treated it as real historical events.And since creation and the flood are mentioned or alluded to in every book of the Bible, this can give a better understanding of the rest of scripture.

Actually nothing the evolutionists do or say makes me uncomfortable in the slightest.

So, if that is true then why do evolutionists try to keep looking further and further back in time, if not looking for origins. Evolutionists have also proposed things like the "big bang" as the origin of the universe.

So if evolution doesn't deal with origins then any claim that we were originally apelike creatures is invalid, as would be any claim about where we originated from.

Anyone is free to believe what they want but should look at all the evidence, including the different interpretations of the evidence to decide what to believe.

 Evolutionists allege that modern humans originated  from apelike creatures and, before that from single cell organisms, so this is still dealing with origins.

Which is one reason why evolution and creation creation are incompatable, evolutionary science can not tell us how everything originated, but God tells us in plain straight forward language.

Darwin believed it could be applied to origins and one of his influences said he wanted to "free the science from Moses", so these men were convinced that evolution could explain the "Origin of Life".

So, evolution is a creative process, so why could it not create life?

So then evolution cannot create anything, right?, including new species.

The ability to create, in order for something to change( evolve), it first has to exist. So, is evolution a force that is able to create everything? 

That is the appeal to authority fallacy, just because someone has a series of letters after their name doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are talking about. 

if by evolution, you mean adaptive change, that is an observable phenomena, if, on the other hand you mean that evolution is a creative force, that is not what we see.

It doesn't, it is atheistic scientists that have made the claim 

Which version  of evolution are you referring to?

 Most Jewish scholars consider Genesis as being a literal account of creation and although the Bible is not a science book, wherever it touches on scientific subjects it is 100% accurate.

 No matter what fallible humans (the Church) think, it is Scripture that should be a Christians authority. 

Quite the contrary, I have been to many churches due to numerous moves,Baptist, pentacostal, free Methodist and my wife attended catholic church

and none of these incited hate toward anyone.

What many fail to grasp is that it is not denominations that go to heaven, it is individuals and even though Christians are advised to fellowship with other Christians, not all in any denomination are truly saved, they all have some who don't walk the walk. There are also those who spend a lifetime serving in the church who have no clue about the actual gospel message. In that respect, yes, many who call themselves Christian will not go to heaven. As  for 99.99%, only God knows the percentage.