creationist debate?

The sun is in the midst of heaven, in other words is the center of the universe, it does not move from that position, however the sun does turn in that stationary position.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) was a mathematician and astronomer who proposed that the sun was stationary in the center of the universe and the earth revolved around it. [Soure: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Or of course you could believe what is written in the book of Joshua 10:13: "...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” But then again it does that every day, if you know what the term "whole day' represents.

Do you know why the evening and morning were the first day?

If not mistaken, the darkness covered the entire face of the earth when God said let there be light. And God saw the light, and according to the "In-kind" principle, God makes all things "In-kind", meaning in either nature or form, not something from nothing.

Thus God made the visible light from the invisible light by dividing the light from the darkness, also known as the two great lights of the eternal God, being the first day (or beginning).

I would go on but no sense in it if not interested.

Like your signature quote. I'm copying it 😇

Thank You!

And to add to your thoughts pertaining Atheist Scientists adding another zero. Outside the fact that Evolution is virtually Impossible, the longer one can make the Evolution process seem by adhering to the age of the Universe, the more the foolish will buy it. It fascinates me, that the majority of human beings "past-present-definitely future" desire to accept something complicated and far diluted from the Truth, than they will buy the quick and easy to the point honest Truth.

Darwin's "Tree of Life" looks like some kindergarten child drew a series of lines with branches. And to top that off, he wrote on the top of the page, "I think!" And Atheist literally find this to be the work of a Genius. And what really strokes my fire, is the fact that Darwin suffered from several forms of "Mental Illnesses." It's a known fact, and still, Atheists classify his idiocracy to that of a Genius Standard.

And to be brutally honest, it's a known fact that most Mathematicians, Engineers, Scientists, all suffer from 1 or more forms of "Mental Illnesses." And how in the world the "SANE" allowed these mental midgets to be a voice of Reason and Authority is no doubt a trick of Satan!

If you think about it, most people I have met with Higher IQ's have had their odd quirks. There really is a major part of being a human being missing from them. It's interesting how brilliant one can be in a specific area, and then just as equally dumber than a box of rocks in everything else.

If the fact is that evolution is virtually impossible, then one cannot deny the possibility of creation being false is a fact.

The truth cannot possibly be untrue. Reminds me of the song, 'Carry on my ..."

Do you think a basic sponge of algae grew lungs, feet, hands and exited the water to kick off the series of events to Evolution?

IMO that is just as plausible interpretation of scripture as the one that all human beings originated from a single set of human progenitors.

So did the one man that was created have 5 fingers on each hand and 5 toes on each foot, or did he have 6 digits on each hand and 6 digits on each foot? The reason I ask is because the question of Cain's wife has lead to the theological conclusion that Adam and Eve were so genetically pure that Cain's wife being his sister wouldn't have posed the potential genetic risks that is biologically known to occur in children conceived by incest since they were spiritually corrupt and not physically corrupt.

Since you believe that mankind originated from the one set of progenitor theology then how do you account for humans with six fingers or six toes, not to mention the diverse genetic traits found in the human population that requires the evolution of man by genetic mutations in order to support its theology for one set of progenitors?

In case you weren't familiar with the giants having six fingers and six toes on each appendage:
And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. 2 Sam 21:20

Click to expand...

Ahhhh, the debate between inherited genetics vs natural selection has finally made its arrival!

I completely understand what you are stating, and you do make a very strong case knowing that both Cain and his wife split the divide. That makes it even more ironic that their first child, Enoch, was viewed as a most just and holy man who has never physically died by natural causes and was caught up to Heaven by God. By all human genetics, Enoch would have been the first generation of incest. Now we fall back to the animal kingdom where it's common for animals in the wild to create offspring with siblings and parents. And for the most part, there are no genetic defects.

I look at groups today in America like the Jews and the Amish. Both groups are relatively small and eventually you will marry direct bloodline. Within these groups, Science has detected several viruses and disease that have created health issues in children and young adults. Granted, much of this can also be related to environmental surroundings. But it really falls back more on the lines of incest than anything else.

As we read the Book of Genesis or the Book Job, we do not directly see any correlation that incest played any role in the health of the original lineage. Is that from the Holy Spirit not inspiring Moses to include such things? Or, could it be there were no issues with incest in the beginning? It's hard to think what we can visibly see in the issues related to incest today, without applying that to almost 6,000 years ago. Which definitely makes environmental surroundings come into play.

The son of Cain named Enoch is not the same Enoch referenced in Genesis 5:24.

But really the point is the word of the LORD is the same yesterday, today and in perpetuity so the possibility that incest would have been necessary or required in order for mankind to populate the earth is naught, and the probability nil. In other words, if it was permissible then it would be permissible now.

However, I got to give credit to Richard Dawkins for acknowledging the commonality between the accounts of man's origin and thus proposes that mankind didn't evolved from one set of two progenitors but one set of three progenitors in a lecture entitled "There never was a first person."

Those three being the Y-Chromosome Adam, the Mitochondrial Eve and the third being our most recent common ancestor. However, many don't recognize where that concept originated from but then they wouldn't believe a parable anyway.

Look it up for yourself 😊

Dr Georgia Purdom is a geneticist. She talks about all this stuff.

6 days 😊

Are you suggesting our most recent common ancestor being the ape?

And I also would agree that if incest was accepted by God then, it is now.

We were created day 6, he took 5 days to create all for us

My grandmother is not an ape or a catfish

No, I don't believe that I will. I will just simply take your post as a 'no' answer and leave it at that. There are many references to the sun rising and setting but no mention of the sun making a circuit either on the earth or around the earth. The verses that describe the movement of the sun are stated in figurative terms that readily describes the phenomenon of what appears to be movement but are not a literal because the sun neither rises or sets but only appears to do so due to the rotation of the earth. Do you take every verse in the bible literally or just the ones that support your narrative about the sun?

Knowledge may have been gained at that moment but unfortunately there was no wisdom. Knowledge without wisdom can be a dangerous thing.

literal-inerrant 😁

There never was a first person? Do people actually believe this, sir...I listened to this lecture and I can not believe people accept this..

Sorry

It was permissible then...man would have been the closest to naturally pure yesterday sir...

And man, due to the fall is NOT the same yesterday, today, or tomorrow....too many things affect man and too many things are effected by man

Its a literal account with a signified or spiritual understanding . The whole bible the tongue of God is written that way. The signature God has spoken as it is written .Without parables Christ spoke not.

He could of literally performed that work in the twinkling of the eye