blackbird

Your comment seems to indicate you have read nothing about this subject. Since this is an important subject, it would seem that someone who really want to know the truth, would make an effort to read some articles. Since the world is a corrupt, evil place and children and all ages do suffer, one would think you would want to know the reason(s) why. This is one perspective: "Why does God let children suffer? Answered by Bible Q · 8 April 2012 · 0 Comments Thank you for your question. The problem of suffering is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that a Christian has to face, as it cuts to the core of our understanding of God and His purpose. Whilst some skeptics use it as an argument for atheism, I do not think this argument has the power to undermine the strong arguments for God’s existence. It does, however, warn us against naive understandings of God. Before I begin to attempt an answer to this question it is important to distinguish two separate ways one might approach this problem. One is the intellectual perspective, i.e. how is suffering consistent with the existence of a loving God? The other is the emotional response to some particular instance of suffering. This second perspective is not one I can answer here, indeed it would be patronising to do so. Whilst an intellectual understanding of suffering might help someone put their personal suffering in a larger philosophical context, it will not remove their suffering or restore someone they’ve lost. Here I will only attempt to give some reflections on the intellectual problem of suffering. The focus on child suffering is significant. One might ask why there is any suffering, whether experienced by a child or by an adult. I suspect there are two reasons why people often focus on the suffering of children. Firstly, it does seem unfair that some live to eighty or ninety in relative comfort, whilst some children die very young. We might feel, if not okay, at least less bad about someone dying at eighty or ninety. But if a child dies there is so much that they haven’t yet experienced or enjoyed – this seems terribly unfair. Secondly, we generally regard children as innocents. Even childish naughtiness is dwarfed by all the awful things adults get up to. So again, it seems unjust that innocents should suffer. The focus on child suffering takes us to the very heart of the general problem of suffering. We might accept some suffering that does us good in the long run (like going to the dentist); we might accept suffering that befalls wicked people (like criminal punishment); we might accept some suffering, as long as it is balanced out by a lot more joy. But we find it hard to accept suffering that seems pointless and random. If a child dies in an accident or has some horrible disease, there seems no rhyme or reason to that. How can a loving God allow that? The first thing to consider is that we do not know all the purposes of God. We cannot know them because His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. We cannot know therefore that any particular instance of suffering is pointless. It is important not to misunderstand this idea. If a child dies it is glib, patronising and even hurtful to say “well, God moves in mysterious ways”. And one might justly ask “what way justifies the death of this child?”. The point is not that we should just accept suffering and not ask questions, but we do need consider that just because something appears pointless to us now does not mean that it is pointless in the grand purpose of God. The second thing to consider is in what way do we expect God to prevent child suffering, particularly if we are inclined to accept some adult suffering. If a falling rock hits an adult they will die. If a falling rock hits a child they will die. Do we expect children to be immune to accident and disease until, say, their 18th birthday? How could you arrange such a world, and make the laws of nature behave in such a strange way? Could gravity not act on loose rocks above children? Or would children somehow be so much stronger than adults that they could withstand falling rocks? I do not mean these remarks to be flippant. I am simply asking the question: Is it possible to conceive of a world where adults suffering but children do not? Now you might say, “I accept that the laws of nature mean that falling rocks will kill anybody unfortunate enough to be in their path but God could still intervene if he wanted to”. This is true, but let us understand what this entails. If we think that God should intervene to prevent the deaths of children then we commit to the view that every time a rock falls it will fall to the ground, except when there is a child in the way. In these cases, God would intervene to move the rock. (God would also have to intervene in lots of other cases too). Let us consider the implications of that. Firstly, the laws of nature would no longer be active, at least not in any consistent way. The law of gravity, for instance, would be a universal natural law except when it entailed the death of a child then it would fail. But not just the law of gravity – all the laws of nature would have to bend to prevent child suffering. So science, which depends on the regularity of natural laws, would no longer work and everything mankind has discovered by science would not have been discovered. Also these crazy laws might have unintended consequences. An avalanche headed towards a single child would automatically be diverted into some other course, perhaps into an adult (or even a village full of adults). Similarly, human free will would have to be overridden when it entailed human suffering. I might think that I want to drive at speed, or to ignore safety warnings, or to pollute the planet with green house gases. However, I would automatically be prevented from doing these things because it would entail human suffering. Worse than this, if a butterfly flapping its wings can cause hurricanes on the other side of the world then all my actions, however minor, would have to be minutely controlled by God otherwise I might unintentionally contribute to child suffering. My point is that to prevent all child-suffering would require that the laws of nature no longer function and that human free-will should no longer be operative. (Now, this does not mean that God can never intervene, simply that when God intervenes there will be consequences and so He cannot intervene all the time). The final consequence of God intervening to prevent all child suffering would be that His existence would never be in doubt. If anyone said “I don’t believe in God” then all that would be required would be for me to put a child in danger and watch as the child is miraculously saved. Now if God wants to His existence to be less than obvious, that is, if He wants people to come to Him through faith and love not through compulsion, then He cannot act in this way. His interventions have to be less regular to allow people to deny His existence, if they choose to. There is one last point. We have seen that if we want to preserve the laws of nature and free-will then child suffering cannot be universally prevented. But this is only true if suffering exists at all. So one might ask: Why did God create a world in which suffering exists? Why not create a safe world without falling rocks, or horrible diseases, or nasty people? But that world you are describing is the Kingdom of God and if the world were already like that there would be no need for the Kingdom of God to come. But the Kingdom hasn’t yet come and we are reminded by the suffering around us that we need the Kingdom, when there will be no suffering. That Kingdom cannot exist whilst there are still people who are intent on doing wicked things. The Bible says that God subjected the world to futility (Rom 8:20) whilst there is wickedness on the earth. But there will come a day when God will judge the wicked and create “a new heavens and a new earth” for the righteous." Bible Q | Why does God let children suffer?

Yes, abortion is genocide. The unborn are people too and under the Charter Section 7 that you referred to, the unborn should be protected. Their life is just as sacred as other people who are already outside the womb. Unfortunately, human life is not respected in the government or legal system for all people. Human life begins before birth. This is biblical as well as historical. Our system is evil and corrupt. Using "capacity" is just an excuse for a major failure in the health care system. Ask anyone or any politician and they will tell you the health care system is failing. Putting thousands of people on waiting list is not treating everyone equally. It is discrimination against people with serious medical problems such as cancer or heart conditions, etc. Liberal and Socialist governments promised public health care for everyone, but failed to deliver. They did not put enough resources into it long ago and it is failing. Their solution is to discriminate against certain classes or age groups of people.

If that is true, why has there been a genocide against unborn babies in Canada? What about the right to life? If there is no breach of the Charter by government, why are thousands of people who need surgery for cancer and other things being put on a waiting list and discriminated against?

If we have a Charter of Rights, why do we have court rulings that give a drunk driver who killed people a relatively small number of years in prison and then he may get out on parole after half of the sentence? Yet a sexual predator may get a much greater sentence than a killer but he didn't actually kill anyone although me may have caused a lot of harm. I would think a killer should get a far greater sentence than a sexual predator. I am not diminishing the evil of sexual predators but only showing the corruption of the justice system in its warped punishments. Or is punishment for crime passe? I guess the first priority is rehabilitation, not punishment in liberal minds.

If you attended a seminary, scripture work, I wonder why they did not teach you the answers to your questions from the Bible, particularly the subject of suffering. That would seem to be basic biblical knowledge they should have taught in a seminary. I think the answers to all of what you mentioned can be found by typing the question into a search engine. Sometimes you have to read a number of articles on a subject. Not all might be 100% accurate but you will find many answers that way. I have for years. Some will refer to the Bible where you can look up and verify the teachings or theology on the matter. Incidentally feelings are not a useful way of determining truth or error on biblical matters. Here is one answer to the question of suffering. quote Why Is There Suffering? Related Media I. What are the causes of suffering? A. Sinful people cause some suffering directly (lying, anger, divorce, drugs, crime, etc.). B. Sin causes suffering indirectly (because of sin this earth is corrupted, deteriorating, painful and evil – Genesis 3:14-19; 4:1-15; Romans 8:20-22). C. Conclusion: God is not the cause of suffering; He is the author of good (James 1:13-17). Some people conclude that since God made everything, He made evil too. But St. Augustine’s reasoning seems to be correct: 1. God is the author of everything in the created universe. 2. Evil is not a thing or a substance; it is a privation or lack in things (blindness is lack of sight, pain is lack of health, hate or murder is lack of love). 3. Therefore God did not create evil. II. Why doesn’t God end all evil immediately? To end evil God would have to destroy the cause of evil – people. In His good plan for people (see below), it is therefore not good to end all evil immediately. III. Why doesn’t God make people unable to cause suffering? To do that, God would have to take away our ability to choose. But choice – free will – is a good thing. In order to love, you must be able to choose to love. Forced love is not love. So to have a universe that included love, God had to make us with choice, which includes the choice not to love – and that makes sin, evil, pain and suffering possible. IV. Why does God allow natural disaster and disease? It is a part of a sinful world. God lowered the perfection of creation (from the perfect garden of Eden) to match the spiritual state of those who live here (Romans 8:20-22). God graciously has sustained people on this earth (allowing them to reproduce, to develop governments and systems to deal with the effects of sin). He has graciously sustained the fallen creation (providing sun and rain for food to sustain life – Colossians 1:17). But the natural effect of a fallen creation is that even good things can have evil byproducts (water can drown someone; gravity can kill someone; lightening can burn and kill). V. Why doesn’t God stop evil acts that cause innocent people to suffer? Why doesn’t God miraculously intervene to stop evil acts if He is all-loving and all-powerful? Why doesn’t He catch the drunk driver’s car that is going to crash into a bus? Why doesn’t He deflect the murderer’s bullets? The person asking doesn’t actually want God to stop all their evil acts. They don’t want to be invisibly gagged every time they’re about to say something hurtful; they don’t want to stub their toe when they try to kick the dog. They just think it would be good if God stopped certain evil acts or just the evil acts of others. But that would make life impossible. There would be no freedoms, no regularity and no personal responsibility. VI. Why doesn’t God let us choose to get out of this suffering? The answer is that He does. That is the gracious, loving response of God to the evil condition of this sinful world. A. God has provided for personal salvation – the promise of eternal life in heaven where there is no suffering (Revelation 21:4). One must simply put his trust in the payment for sin God provided through Christ’s death on the cross (John 3:16-18; Acts 10:38-43: etc.). B. God has provided for the earth’s redemption (Romans 8:18-23; 2 Peter 3:10,13; Revelation 21:1). VII. Why can’t we get out of this evil world of suffering immediately? We don’t know why God’s timetable is what it is. We can see why He couldn’t deliver Adam and Eve immediately – God first had to provide redemption through Christ. The world continues today in part because there are more people yet that will come to have eternal salvation. We do know that God is causing all things to work together for good to those who love God (Romans 8:28). VIII. What are some good reasons for suffering? A. It enables us to cope in a sinful world. B. It teaches us to turn to God for solution. C. It produces character improvement (holiness, maturity, etc. James 1:24) which in turn produces eternal rewards (crown of life – James 1:12). D. It gives God the opportunity to show His grace, love and care for our sinful condition. 1. Pain can keep us from a greater physical evil. A burnt finger warns us to avoid worse danger. 2. Pain can keep us from greater moral evil. A spanking does that. 1. For eternal deliverance from evil – Heaven 2. For temporal deliverance from evil – Safety or holiness 3. For spiritual strength to endure suffering (2 Cor. 12:7-10) 1. Through Christ’s life and death for our sake (Romans 5:6-8). 2. Through providing a place where there is no more suffering, sin or death (1 Corinthians 15:51-55; Revelation 21:4). *Credit for many of the ideas in this study belongs to Dr. Norm Geisler unquote Why Is There Suffering? | Bible.org Another website has an article. I won't post the article but just the link. Why Is There Pain And Suffering In The World? Scriptures Why Is There Pain And Suffering In The World? - Scriptures (the-scriptures.co.uk)

This article explains how that happened. quote "How can there be so many races if we all descended from two people?" - 08-17-11, Robert A. Rowlett 8/18/2011 47 Comments Question Allison asks: “This question has haunted me for a while now. I believe that all mankind is descended from two human beings: Adam and Eve. But I cannot explain the vastly different races. If Mankind is descended from two people, how can there be so many great differences in racial features? Thanks so much, and God bless you guys!” Great question! I’m actually excited to answer it because it’s part of my particular area of study: Biology. You might be surprised at the answer. Let me first state that I share your view on the origin of all mankind: two people—Adam and Eve. Definitions Before we get going, it is important we start with the definition of “race.” As we will see later, this definition is crucial in understanding why there are so many variations in human appearance. Answers in Genesis gives a particularly interesting definition of race that sheds some light on its origin: "Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."1 The term “race,” then, means a particular group of humans that has evolved at a different rate or time than another group of humans. It should therefore be apparent that “race” is very much a (macro-)evolutionary term. What Does the Bible Say about “Race”? With the definition of “race” in place, what does the Bible say about these different “races”? The Bible is actually quite clear on the subject, and considering the evolutionary background of the definition of the word “race” it shouldn’t come as any surprise. It clearly states there aren’t any! Consider Acts 17:24-16 (KJV): “24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” Verse 26 clearly states that God made all the nations of men out “of one blood”. This would make sense as Adam and Eve were the first created humans and thus all humankind must’ve descended from them. That means Biblically speaking there aren’t any different races since God created all people from the same two, original ancestors. But if there aren’t any “races” Biblically, then what accounts for all of the differences among humans? Quite literally the answer is a bunch of “hooblah”—specifically the mixing up of languages that occurred at the Tower of Babel. Dr. Ken Ham, (bachelors in Applied Science with an emphasis on environmental biology, three honorary doctorates in Divinity, Literature, and Letters)—founder and President of Answers in Genesis—made the following observation (brackets mine): "Because of the new language and geographic barriers [as a result of the confusion at the Tower of Babel], the groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born. If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups with completely different characteristics might result. For instance, we might find a fair-skinned group with tight, curly dark hair that has blue, almond-shaped eyes. Or a group with very dark skin, blue eyes, and straight brown hair. Some of these (skin color, eye shape, and so on) became general characteristics of each particular people group through various selection pressures (environmental, sexual, etc.) and/or mutation."1 What Dr. Ham is saying is that at the Tower of Babel, people groups split off and their genetic code began being repeated over and over—thus resulting in groups of people who have a predominate characteristic. You may say that this view would assume that different groups (white, black, light brown, etc.) would have to have already existed and you would be correct in saying so. Dr. Ham before explained that Noah’s family had much to do with the initial causing of these various groups: "Those with darker skin tend to live in warmer climates, while those with lighter skin tend to live in colder climates. Why are certain characteristics more prominent in some areas of the world? We know that Adam and Eve were the first two people. Their descendants filled the earth. However, the world’s population was reduced to eight during the Flood of Noah. From these eight individuals have come all the tribes and nations. It is likely that the skin shade of Noah and his family was middle brown. This would enable his sons and their wives to produce a variety of skin shades in just one generation. Because there was a common language and everybody lived in the same general vicinity, barriers that may have prevented their descendants from freely intermarrying weren’t as great as they are today. Thus, distinct differences in features and skin color in the population weren’t as prevalent as they are today."1 Long story short, then, here is how there are differences among humans: Noah’s family’s genes would’ve allowed for a plethora of different combinations of the features of his decedents within a few generations. When God split up the people of the Earth at the Tower of Babel, it took those already specialized groups and caused them to inbreed so-to-speak. The people that ended up with the same language began living in their respective language-groups and began to intermarry. This reinforced the characteristics of those groups causing them to become more and more prominent and different from the other groups since access to rest of the gene pool of other features had been cut off by language. That’s why there are so many differences between humans (skin color, eye shape, etc.). I will note however, that there is still not very much difference between humans genetically even today. The difference between any two people (even within a certain ethnic group) is in the order of 0.2%.1 If you look at specifically “racial” characteristics such as eye shape and skin color, the statistic goes down to 0.012%.1 Conclusion In finality, then, the reason so many “races” exist is because of the Flood as well as the Tower of Babel. I will end by agreeing with Human Genome project that, “there is only one race—the human race.”1 God bless, Robert A. Rowlett unquote "How can there be so many races if we all descended from two people?" - 08-17-11, Robert A. Rowlett - Coherent Faith Apologetics (weebly.com)

Your argument about there being only one truth is really with God and Jesus. Jesus and the prophets and apostles all taught in the Bible there is only one true God and only one way of salvation, that is, through Jesus Christ. That is what he taught. I prefer to believe him than anyone else. Since you have not really studied the Bible, it is kind of odd that you make nonsensical comments about it. The Bible is not meant to be a science book on physical laws or gravity and does not claim to be. It makes a simple statement that everyone can understand, that is, that God created everything.

The reasons you say that is because you don't understand or have knowledge of the Bible or biblical truth. What you are saying goes entirely contrary to what Jesus taught. So your argument really is with God and Jesus. The fact is other humans are not going to save your soul. Many are strictly in it for themselves. The Bible warns against trusting man rather than God. Unfortunately, as I said, you don't understand the Bible or Christian faith and want to argue against it without any knowledge.

1. Saved from going to Hell for eternity. The fact is a person has only this short life to decide where he will spend eternity. 2 Of course I understand. I support empirical science, not fake science. 3. Yes, there is one true faith as revealed in the Bible. The world is full of false religions. If you study the Bible, you will learn why it is the truth. I don't call the truth superior. That implies there is something in other religions of value. That is not the correct way of looking at it. There is only one truth in the world.

One either believes in the God of the Bible or they don't. quote 2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (Read More...) Job 32:8 - But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. 2 Peter 1:20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Luke 12:12 - For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. 2 Timothy 3:1-17 - This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. (Read More...) 2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. unquote BIBLE VERSES ABOUT INSPIRATION (kingjamesbibleonline.org) Of course those who do not believe in God or the Bible will think it is foolishness. The Bible explains that. "14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. " 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV This tells me that people who do not believe the Bible or God are still in their natural state. That is why the subject is foolishness to them. When people mock or reject it, we know where they are coming from. They are in a lost state and need to be saved, redeemed by Jesus Christ. Life is short. It is not wise to spend one's time fighting against God and his Word. There is a day of judgment not long from now. There is still time to change and believe the gospel.

I think everyone around her knows you are full of it and just like to be contrary and spew nonsense.

Not really. The King James Bible is the absolute truth through all time. Truth does not change to suit the latest fad. The Bible says God created everything. What is there to change about that? That fact is unchangeable. The prophets who wrote the Old Testament several thousand years ago were inspired to write what they wrote. There is nothing to change. Science does not dictate truth or what the Bible should say. Science is subject to the Bible, not the other way around.

Science is not infallible. Not everything in science is the truth. Science claims have often been disproven later. Your problem is you won't admit you are a sinner in need of a Savior and salvation. You think you know better than God and the Bible.

How many times have I heard people say I would rather trust "science" that the Bible or something along that line? Many, many times on these forums and other comment sections. Looks like many people believe science is infallible.

"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. " Proverbs 1:7 KJV

The problem that Darwinists or proponents of evolution face is that organisms or cells require vast amounts of information. This is why creation makes far more sense. When God created life on earth he created the information and put it in the living creatures and in man. The information in each species would be different from other species, although certain things may be similar. These experiments in a lab with E coli do not require the addition of information, that is, mutations and natural selection, of e coli do not require new information in order to occur. This is not evolution in the sense commonly believed by Darwinists. Darwin knew nothing about the information in a cell or creature.

Creationists believe in mutations and natural selection but not in the way the evolutionists claim. We have to understand the difference between Darwinism where evolutionists claim that all creatures and man evolved from a sludge in a pond. It is important to understand what creationists believe and the difference between what they believe and what evolutionists believe. quote Creationists have long shown that these changes in bacteria are not the same as the notion of evolution as it is normally believed and understood. For microbes to be transformed into complex, multi-celled organisms, something more is needed (see Superbugs: Not super after all). In most cases, changes in bacteria simply involve natural selection—changes in a population when the least fit organisms die off, and the ones that already have resistant factors survive and multiply. (Sometimes these factors are transferred from other organisms that already have them, but in either case, nothing new has arisen.) Creationists are firm believers in natural selection. This is not evolution in the sense that most people use the word—the rise of new, complex organisms, the sort of change which in principle could be capable of changing one-celled creatures into pelicans, pomegranates and people. (See our articles on natural selection.) Such evolutionary change would require the addition of new information, which is not a feature of the sort of changes one sees in bacteria. Even when a bacterium develops resistance where there previously was none in the population, by mutation (a random copying mistake which changes the genetic information), the change still represents a loss of information. This sounds counterintuitive, but it’s important to recognize that enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule. Mutations reduce specificity. Hence the enzyme is less effective in its primary function, but it is able to break down other molecules too. In no case have bacteria been observed to become resistant through a gain of new information, i.e., the emergence of a completely new gene that produces a completely new enzyme (see Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?). Hall actually has a noble goal in mind. He hopes to be able to predict how bacteria will develop resistance to new drugs so that drug manufacturers can develop strategies to circumvent the bacterium’s ability to adapt. ‘We make a drug and after a while bugs adapt to it,’ Hall explains. ‘But if we can predict how they’re going to get around our treatments, we can work out a way to make it impossible for them. We can cut them off at the pass.’2 The ability to predict how bacteria will respond to new drugs is exciting science, but to say scientists are ‘predicting evolutionary potential’ is sadly misleading. The ability of bacteria to survive in hostile environments points to pre-existing information and mechanisms that God put in the genes of bacteria in the first place.3 Bacteria only produce bacteria ‘after their kind,’ not new types of creatures. unquote Biologists mimic evolution in the lab? (creation.com)

quote The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question. Lay summary: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s, however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on “scientific evidence.” This article critically reviews that “scientific evidence” and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal. unquote This is a long article and I can't post the whole thing on here. If you want to read the reasons why they reached this conclusion, go to the following website: Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PMC (nih.gov)

Go ahead and give us an example of proof of evolution. You worship "science" as if is infallible when in fact there are many examples in history where "science" was later proven wrong. Here is an article for you on the subject of science and explains why it is not infallible. What is Science? | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Check again. Evolution has never been demonstrated or proven.

Again I must repeat, you have not studied the Bible. God himself said in the Bible in over 2,000 places thus and thus. He spoke to man or prophets directly.

I have already said that evolution is not empirical science. It is not supported by the scientific method, i.e. experiment and observation. Much of evolution's claims have been debunked as false. Recent science in the last number of years have proven many claims of evolutionists as false. Creation.com articles and videos show that. The video I gave a link for show the claims that man and apes came from a common ancestor have been shown to be incorrect.

There are countless articles on the subject and countless videos. I am not saying every word or idea presented on this material is infallible or absolute truth because it came from fallible men. Only the Bible is absolute truth because it came from God. Here are some more sources of information: What is Science? About the Author, Philip Stott General Index For First-timers Introductory Remarks What Is Science? Zoology as Anti-Christianity How Firm Is Your Ground? Thaxton: Christianity & Scientific Enterprise Polkinghorne: Creation & Structure / World Stott: Hermeneutics, Science & Scripture Hanko: Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1 Atheism in Decline Everywhere Soddy: Address to Nobel Prizewinners Einstein: Theories of Relativity Selbrede: Rebuttal of North & Nieto Einstein: Sidelights on Relativity Stott: The Christian and Science Statement on Science & Christianity Evolution Lodge: Search for Definition of Evolution Thaxton et al: The Mystery of Life's Origin Biography of Charles Robert Darwin Darwin's Origin of the Species >> Introduction 01: Variation Under Domestication 02: Variation Under Nature 03: Struggle for Existence 04: Natural Selection 05: Laws of Variation 06: Difficulties on Theory 07: Instinct 08: Hybridism 09: Imperfection / Geological Record 10: Geological Succession of .. Beings 11: Geographical Distribution 12: Geographical Distribution, cont. 13: Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion Glossary, from the sixth edition Fernandez: Talk Origins: Deception by Omission Colby: Intro to Evolutionary Biology Stott: Creation, Evolution & the Christian Goldberg: Persecution of Richard Sternberg Johnson: Darwinists Squirm Under the Spotlight Johnson: Comparing Hostage-takers Johnson: What is Darwinism? Johnson: The Church of Darwin Miller / Johnson Debate: How Did We Get Here? Johnson: Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin Johnson: Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning Behe: Intelligent Design in Biochemistry Dembski: Still Spinning Just Fine: Response to Miller Berlinski: The Deniable Darwin Keeping an Eye on Evolution: Dawkins Trips Spetner: A Scientific Critique of Evolution Atheism in Decline Everywhere II Buckna: Do Creationists Publish in Refereed Journals? Jerlström: Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional? Wells: Unseating Naturalism / Developmental Biology Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories Life's Origins: Thermodynamics Life's Origins: DNA and Proteins Ages of Time Geological & Astronomical Time Goldberg: The Persecution of Richard Sternberg Stott: Age of the Earth & Historical Geology Stott: Ages of Time: Astronomical Biography of James Hutton Brown's Hydroplate Theory Biography of Sir Charles Lyell Lyell: Principles of Geology, Chapter 3 Lyell's "The Student's Elements of Geology" > > Introduction and Contents 01: On the Different Classes of Rocks 02: Aqueous Rocks, Composition & Stratification 03: Fossils in Strata 04: Consolidation of Strata & Petrifaction 05: Strata Above the Sea 06: Denudation Chadwick: A Creation / Flood Model Ostrichosaurus: Astonishing T. Rex Soft Tissue Geocentrism Introduction: What is geocentricity? Stott: Thinking and Reasoning (Geocentrically) Jordan: The Geocentricity Question How Figurative is the Geocentricity Question? Tielhard de Chardin's View George H. Schweitzer’s View Byl: Another Look at Galileo North: The Flat Earth Temptation Geocentrism: An Astrophysicist’s Comments Aardsma: Geocentricity and Creation Stott: The Timothy Test, A Continuing Saga Faulkner: Geocentrism and Creation Geocentricity: A Fable for Educated Man? Babinski: The Bible's Geocentrism Babinski: Morris' Attempts to Deny Geocentricity Babinski: Abandoning Geocentrism for Evolution Babinski: Is Earth the Center of God's Interest? Stott: Towards a Biblical Cosmology Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

I have already explained why I cannot debate something like what you posted as I have no expertise in biology. You claim what they say is absolute truth and ignore the fact that they are biased in favour of evolution. They start from the premise there is no God, that the Biblical account of creation cannot be true, and that only evolution could explain things. That is a clear bias. There is no way around that. Secondly, the Bible is not a book on science, history, theology, but it is a book that God gave us to tell us what we have to know about man's problem (sin), the fall of man, and the solution and what the future will bring. It is a supernatural book recording the supernatural dealings of God with man. Since you know nothing at all about the Bible or where it came from, it is a bit rich for you to call it a myth.

If you watch the rest of video they explain why this does not prove a common ancestry. They explain that God created humans and animals with many similarities. That is because there are characteristics that are good for both man and certain animals that are similar. For example several creatures and humans both have five fingers. This does not prove they evolved. All it means is this is the way that God created those animals and humans. It had nothing to do with evolution.