₦airaland Forum

This guy, its like you are copying and pasting...and i am here thinking it was all you

truthmans2012:
Do you watch magic on TV ?

How old are you ? Haven't you seen Hausa magicians before?

Haven't you seen charms work ? Who is behind it?

Search for magic on Google and come and tell me your discovery here.

First of all, i dont know what my age has to do with anything

Secondly, listen to yourself, Magic...whats magic?
Whats the aim of a magician? Why does a magician like to command an audience?, why do they collect money for their shows?

People like to be dazzled, thats why the pay to see themselves get fooled because the brain is a very vulnerable organ and can be easily fooled by well practiced tricks...

Bro, i like you alot, you actually make arguing with a theist worth the while...truly, i respect you

Your argument still have flaws and i hope you would address my counter points on this thread because on the design own, you ran away

First of all, you are using a mathematical concept to the actual universe, it doesnt work that way and who said infinity can be finite?
Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities). For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable...

Then you claim that the universe cannot come from nothing, but you dont have enough information to make such claims, you dont have nothing to examine, so how can you make such a claim?

Then you went on to say what ever caused the universe must have a will! Thats the most absurd part of the argument, how can you know that?, every thing that has been on the chain of cause and effect from the big bang till humans arrived ddnt have a will, so what makes you think that the cause of the big bang must have a will?

Interesting...why are supernatural claims always vague and no real evidence for it?

Do you believe there are people who believe they were kidnapped by aliens and experimented on, would you believe them or you would say its satan?

Or would you be a rational thinker and ask, where is the evidence of your abduction?

So, until someone brings me tangible proof of the supernatural(if anything like that exists?), i remain skeptical and would use reason to evaluate scenerios like this...

johnydon22:
I think in this case human perception comes into consideration... Now since HUMANS gave their own definition of what "Something" is in contrast to what "Nothing" is.

This definition one can notice is totally a surface scratch to the quantification of the actual reality of things.

Like the E.g i gave with an empty cup..

To the person percieving the image of the cup it appear to have "Nothing" in it but wheras in actuality it is filled with "something" (air molecules).

So maybe our definition of "Nothing" is really not the opposite of "something" since it can be inferred that "Nothing" to us is simply "something" we can't or may not yet yet percieve at a basic level.

So if there really isn't such a thing as Nothing then i'd say that the answer to the question Why is there something and not nothing? should then be

"Cus there is never such a thing as 'Nothing'"

And if you then ask the opposite of "Something" then we'd have to revisit the definition of nothing to tally with the widening eventuality of the state of existence.

And we can conclude then that "Something" has no opposite since the supposed opposite may not even in actuality exist.

I agree to an extent, it is possible that its all human preception, but in some fundamental way you cant deny the duality of existence. Its either something exists or it doesn't.
There is a physicist who likened nothingness to a line graph, she said the she doesnt think there is anything like nothing because 0 is still a point in the line graph.

My take on it is, remove the line graph completely and what do you have, the non existence of it, absolute nothingness...so even if nothing can be a human perception, it still follows the laws of logic and is a valid question to ask.

I dnt know if i am making any sense?

Hi johnydon22, nice thread n discuss so far

I want to dwell on the matter of nothingness, it has bugged me for ages. When i mean nothing,i mean no space, no time, no energy...

imagine a table with nothing on it.....


Ok, cool store that memory

Now imagine a balloon on that table, that balloon is the universe and all there is.
Amazing right?

Now go back to the previous memory of nothingness...you see how hard it is

So wat i am trying to say is, why is there something instead of nothing, and if nothingness really doesn't exist like davien said, but if thats true, then what is the opposite of something...

I do have a hunch on the matter sha but lets hear your view

winner01:
Who are Scientists and who are creationists? I wonder what you people think of Newton, pascal, boyle, herschel and others. You should start by reading the post first.

You can be a scientist and believe in God, no doubt about that, but when you claim that scientists concluded that the universe is fine tuned, thats just plainly wrong.

What i mean by creationists are apologetics that argue that God created the universe and science can prove it.

As for calling the names of scientists that believe in God, i said it earlier, you can be a theist and do science as long as your science is not influenced by your believes, and i am pretty sure if isaac newton lived in our present day where we have a full naturalistic explanation of the diversity of life, gravity, and many other phenomenon that wasnt explained during his time, he probably would have dumped the idea of a personal God .

I did read the post, nothing new i havent seen before

winner01:
Observable evidence is what prompted scientists to conclude that the universe is fine tuned. They were simply working base on available evidence.

Scientists ddnt conclude that the universe is fine-tuned, it was creationists that did that...yes the evidence shows that if the fundamental parameters were changed, the universe wouldnot be here but the fine tuners assume that life is the end goal of the universe and there is no reason whatsoever to support that assumption.

Need i see other watches before i assume that one was consciously designed?

The universe is not a watch, it is very chaotic and very very hostile to life, and it evolves on its own, so i ask again, how can you assume it is fine tuned when you dont have a distribution of universes to compare with?

You missed this part in the article:

"A common objection to the use of the eye as an example of irreducible complexity is that there are a number of different kinds of eyes found in nature and they exhibit a wide variety of complexity. This observation is used to make a case for evolution. But what we see in nature is not a series of steps in an evolutionary chain. Rather, we see a variety of irreducibly complex biological machines that have the same basic function".

Pardon me, you dont expect me to read all long post, but if you can have incremental versions of complex eyes, then why cant it have evolved also? Doesnt that sound like intellectual dishonesty?

Winner01...Nice post you have there, almost had me convinced but as usual, there are flaws to your argument

Finetuning

For you to claim the universe is fine-tuned, you must first have a distribution of universes to compare. You only have a sample size of one,so how the hell can you claim by all means that the universe was fine tuned...its like finding a snowflake and claiming since its finely structured, it must be a special one and must have been tuned without comparing it with other snowflakes

Irreducible complexity

I was certain you would come up with the eye and how it cannot arise from evolution by blind luck and random chance. One thing you dont understand is that evolution is not by blind luck and random chance,it is the opposite of chance, random mutations occur yes, but the filtering mechanism is very specific(Natural selection).
Heres a series of eyes that shows that its far from being irreducible complex

Emart:
I've had two dreams about rapture.

This was where you lost me...

You know i had a dream that i was a trillionaire, i bought a spaceship and visited mars...i woke up sweating...wow, my money must be real...lemme go buy a ferrari, brb

SMH...

KingEbukasBlog:
this comment is daft

@op

They are many . Most are the scums of the Nigerian society . The Touts , drunks are very atheistic . Try preaching the gospel to them . I entered a bus the other day and the conductor was mocking a preacher .

Try preaching in a peer palour and see mockery . Some traders too are very atheistic . They tell you nothing like heaven or hell and its all lies .

In igbo : Owenghi ihe dika ihe a hu . Nna , hapu that thing

I wont dignify you with a response...

ilovetheline:
[left][/left] what do you think

They are plenty oooooo.....its nice to see Nigerians thinking for themselves

johnydon22:
The first fact is that humanity won't survive that long.

FACT shouldnt be the word, highly probable maybe but not fact... it is possible we spread out of the solar system, colonize the galaxy in about two million years, many settlements would evolve in different ways, some might not, but they would all regard themselves as humans or prodigies of humans. They create a federation of planets and explore to other nearby galaxies(if the technology is possible), they might live in a true utopia and prolong their lives to thousands if not millions of years.

It is also possible we wipe our selves out in the next few thousands of years and the only trace of us would be our ruined structures.

Noone knows the future so i would be careful to call it a Fact

Nice article taurus25...precise and detailed

As for me, i dont subscribe to any of the hypotheses that has been brought forth e.g multiverse hypothesis, big crunch hypothesis. Presently we have no way to probe the earliest universe, and until we do, many of these are just what they are, hypotheses. I really hope we find it out during my lifetime but if not, i still die a happy man knowing my atoms were created at that point(13.7billion years ago) in the universe history.

Cutehector:
The problem for the Christian is solved with the first verse of the Bible, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1)

You cant prove harry potter exists by referring to the novel...thats just plain stupid

It did not occur to any other writer of the bible to prove this fact. The bible plainly states that it is the fool who denies the existence of God. Psa 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God"

Some other writer of the bible also said anyone who calls his fellow man a fool would burn in HELL, mattew 5:22

Man is born with a universal belief in a supreme Being; no tribe has yet been discovered that lacks this. They know that some Being creates and controls.

They dont know, and because every tribe tends to have some sort of belief in a deity SHOWS alot about us as humans and nothing about the so called deity

Some men are so blind that they may deny the existence of the sun in the sky but that does not alter the fact that the sun exists, rises and sets each day. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Can you point me someone who denies the existence of the sun?, and den no one believes the sun exist, we KNOW it exists

Men deny the existence of God not because they cannot find him but because they are afraid to face the responsibility of being accountable to him after death.

So if a thief wants to avoid facing responsibility, all he has to do is deny the existence of the police...wow, very insightful.

The Argument of God's existence from Cause (Cosmological)

The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another.

Here is a book. Someone must have written it. No printing press can of itself produce a book, be it ever so modern a press with the latest electrical gadgets.

Someone built the building. Someone created the trees, therefore, someone operates the universe.

If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the can shaken gently for a million years, the watch would not be "accidentally" put together and running.

The only sensible answer to the problem of the existence of the world is the existence of an intelligent Being whom we call God

From your logic, if everything that exists has a creator, then by definition, your creator who also exist must have a creator or is he an atheist?

The Argument from Design (Teleological)

An examination of the world and the things large and small shows that each creation is designed by an intelligent mind for a specific purpose in life.

The colors of the bird and means of defense of the animals are not by accidents. They are also the result of a plan of a superior planning mind of the originator.

You obviously ddnt do biology in secondary school and never heard of Evolution by natural selection...and mind you, if humans were planned, why do we have hemorrhoids(which is a direct consequence for standing up straight instead of walking on fours)

The Life Argument

All life proceeds from God. The theory from spontaneous generation has been proved fals and completely unacceptable to authoritative science.

Life must have a beginning, the only logical answer is that the beginning is God

You obviously dont know what you are talking about, ever heard of Abiogenesis? Google it...your logical conclusion doesnt answer the question about life beginnings rather it pushes it backward, if God did it, then who did God?

Woaw, you have convinced me...i am no longer an atheist...thank you buddha...oh sorry, is it jesus? My bad, thank you jesus

JMAN05:
when u give urs above„ I ll give mine.

I am told by christians there is a supernatural being in the sky who cant be seen,felt,smelt,heard or tasted but controls the forces of nature and wants you to worship him unless he burns you in hell forever and you must believe in his son that he sent to die for the sins of the world,just so he can forgive the world!!!!

I am told by muslims there is a supernatural being in the sky who created the universe but cant be conceived and you can only worship him by following the teachings of his prophet Mohammad...

I am told by hindus that the creator of the universe is Vishnu and he sent his son krishna to enlighten the world...

I was also told that ancient greeks believed zeus to be the king of the gods and he and his minions interfere and sometimes even mingle wit mere mortals.

Well, i have been told alot of things, many of them self-contradictory, but no single evidence for it...so with my thinking brain, and my knowledge of science, i reject these claims until reasonable evidence suffice.....
Is that too much to ask for?

Martinez19:
I actually love science especially physics. Science is able to account for physical facts proposed by the Bible since evidences are physical. But the Bible tells us that all physical things have spiritual foundation and even our physical world is a reflection of this spirit world. To accept the existence of this unseen world, it is by faith and that is the limit of science were evidence is the proof of things.

What about the physical facts that science accounts for, that the bible doesnt?

You know the muslims would also claim that the quran talked about the big bang and the expansion of the universe

Jews would also claim that the Torah doesnt contradict science.

You said to accept, you need FAITH, but my question is how sure are you that you have faith in the right one?
what if muslims were right, and allah is the one true God, or Mormonism was right or Hindus and Lord Vishnu is the Creator of the universe!
why do you strongly feel that christianity is the right way even though its chances of being the right religion is 0.005% literally

Martinez19:
I get your point donnffd, to grasp things like this, it is only by faith Hebrew. 11:3 so you see no evidence, you must believe. No one searching for God with evidences and scientific methods can attest to God's existence ultimately. There comes a part were faith plays a role. By the way who says science is the only legal way to which answers of the origin can be explained and before they debunk faith have they tried it the way it should be done.

Noone said science is the only legal way, but it is the only one that works for now and we can see its effects.
Believing without evidence, thats the fundamental difference between a theist and an atheist...

Martinez19:
In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth, meaning that before creation on earth began, the earth and heavens were already established and by referring to the originals, we see that the heavens and the earth represents the unseen world and the visible world respectively. We can also see in Gen. 2:2 that this earth was without form and void and the Spirit of the lord was hovering on the face of the waters so you see water existed before creation.
Then God said let there be light and there was light. What could this light mean? In the original text in hebrew, the correct statement was let light be. So you see this light was in existence in the beginning and was curtailed initially only to be unleashed at God's command. I tell you that this light was Jesus and He was the important and essential factor of creation John 1:1-17, John 1:3, John 8:12, Col. 1:16.
That was the first 'day'. Day? but the moon, sun and stars were not created yet so what could this day mean. What Moses called day in Gen. 1:5 was a 'time' frame of measurement in the unseen world and this 'time' frame of measurement or phase is different from that of the visible world. Things in this unseen world called spirit world are not subject to time so nothing grows and nothing decays so it is an immortal world. When specific creations were done in each day, each had to take time to materialize in the visible world For example compare Gen. 1:11-13 and Gen. 1:27 with Gen. 2:4-7. So you see things were done and dusted in the unseen realm but require time to manifest as prepared by the Holy Spirit.
If God had created them male and female already, how come he still needed to create Adam from soil and breath the breathe of life in Adam. As I have said, the creation of man(and his entire generation) was created in the unseen world Ps. 90:1-2 and we all dwelled in God. So when God molded Adam from dust, what he molded was not the real Adam but his earthly body and that breathe of life was the transfer of Adam's spirit to his body. Adam's generation were in his body. If God created them male and female, where was Eve? so you see it required time for what God had done to manifest systematically. Most Christians think that when people are born, they came from heaven It is wrong.
The second activity of creation was the division of water(one above and one below), the firmament is what we see as the sky and this sky was lined uniformly by the body of water above. It was due to the introduction of death by Adam's fall(as I explained in a previous post) that this layer could no longer be sustained at since it uniformly lined the earth's atmosphere, it's disintegration and breakdown led to a worldwide flood in the days of Noah in form of a heavy down poor.
Before I go to the creation of sun, moon, stars, and plant and animal life, any lack of clarity or disagreement?

Nice analysis, but there are missing links and disparities. How can you know things came from the unseen realm if the realm is unseen? Does dat explanation corresponds to what we know about the natural world? I think not.

First off, i can analysis a story well like harry potter and the chambers of secrets, and read quotations from the book but that doesnt mean the story is true, what makes something true? Or at least close to the truth? If there is evidence for it. Now i have told you that genesis is not an accurate description of the orgin of our universe, but you keep citing it, so if we are going to even use it as a basis, you have to show that it is trusted to be used.

How can you show me that genesis should be taken seriously? Give me concrete reason why i should trust Moses revelation and not assume since he ddnt understand science,he too must have erred like joshua, why someone in the stone age would write about an event in which he wasnt there and you would trust his description rather than look at all the evidence available to us in the 21st century?

So basically what i am asking is why are you using the bible to prove the bible? Its a flawed enterprise, the bible is not a science textbook! You cant use it has basis for the origin of the universe when it clearly doesnt corresponds to the evidence!!!

Martinez19:
No cherry picking that was why I backed up the difference by telling you to go to the originals also. Before I give you the story of creation, have you thought about the 'first and fourth day' I told you? What does the word 'day' represent? If the sun, moon and stars were not created until the 'fourth day', what 'light' was the writer talking about in the 'first day' shall I proceed to creation story?

Yes, please do proceed!, i am all eyes

JMAN05:
That sounds like a general statement to me. Atheists do not have such body of beliefs that they all adhere to.

Using Logic and reason to evaluate propositions is not a body of belief, it is a necessity.

Of course, it is not wise to worship what does not exist, but God exists. What makes u think he does not?

Better question is What makes you think he does?, where is your reason and evidence for believing he exists?

All I want to advise is that you speak for urself, not others.

I think he did a nice job describing atheist in a broad sense, i dont see why you are troubled by this

Many theists believe in God with good reasons.

What might those reasons be, if i may ask?

Martinez19:
I didn't say descriptive insult, in Ps. 14:1 Luke 24:25 one can say fools=those lacking the right wisdom and Understanding. In Matt. 5:32 one can say fools = retarded idiot (in an insulting regard).

This is a classical example of cherrypicking...choosing the verse that suits you but ignoring or condemning the verse that doesnt suit you. You want to tell me that if you call someone a fool, the person would be able to tell whether you did it to say he lacks wisdom or you ar just insulting him?

Moreover, you ddnt reply my post on evidence and the creation mathematics

Martinez19:
if you compare the two meanings of the word fool in those two instances Ps. 14:1 and Matt. 5:22 from the originals, you see that one is intended as an insult and strife towards a fellow man and the other is a description of those lacking wisdom. Look at Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, when he saw their lack of understanding of the scriptures He termed them foolish Luke 24:25.

So one is an insult and the other is a descriptive insult, i see...that sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me

Martinez19:
the Bible calls those who say God doesn't exist fools. But never the less, the questions posed by atheists are legal and acceptable and if we are of a true belief, we should provide them with answers after all the truth stands the test of time.

Its also the same bible that said anyone who calls someone a fool would be in the dangers of hell, mattew 5:22

Martinez19:
Well you know I believe in God and I know the Bible in light of God existence. God made it so that to know him, we must first believe in Him Hebrew 11:6 the Bible tells us that you can't prove He exist by evidence. You don't expect me to sound like scientists. Their theory of evolution came from there their interpretation of the 'evidence' they saw. The fact that people are educated or majority supports a view does not count in the ways of God. There are materialists and there are rationalist, all are educated but you know both can't be right.
Mind you Adam didn't start living 6000 years ago. The 6000 years Christians scholars are talking about started after Adam fell and Adam live 930 years after the fall and it may surprise you that Adam died in the great flood check and count in Gen. 5. Mind you, all animal life were created before man. Haven't observed Gen. 1:3-5 and Gen 1:14-19 in the first, you saw creation of light happening in the 'first day' and in the second verse, God created the sun, moon and the stars in the 'fourth day'. Since the sun, moon and stars are vital in distinguishing what we call day from what we call night, what do you think the 'first and fourth day' referred to?
Mind you the Catholic Church and their practices are not biblical and they contradict the Bible. In light of the scripture, it should be branded false.

You cant prove God existence with evidence? Then how can you prove it?

Imagine i told you to rest you back on a newly painted wall, but said it was dry, what exactly would be your first instinct? Yes thats right, touch it first, you wouldnt take my word for it, you would need a far more tangible evidence thats y u touch it to confirm. Now you use reason and evidence in every aspect of your life,but wen it comes to the ultimate truth, evidence and reason goes out the window?

How can the earth be created in three days but the sun, moon and stars in just one day, trust me, your maths is off by a million trillion!

Carbon dating is only one type of radio dating, the halflife of carbon is about 4000years so it doesnt help much in find out deep time, they are others, like plutonium, uranium and some others i can remember now, their halflife is way way longer and those are the ones scientists look for in rocks!

Martinez19:
why they didn't record it I don't know and besides not all historical records are available today some would be discovered while some are lost forever. Don't forget wars were fought and many cities were burnt down remember many cities and people were wiped out during isrealite's journey in the wilderness.
Do you now that many animals of old are now extinct eg. Behemoth, leviathan etc. Job 40:15, Job 41:1. As I have said many answers lie in the story of creation. The gene perspective is wrong among scientists gene though have properties of identification of parental bond, it can't be trusted with wider variety of different species. From the story of creation, which I haven't told you, the gene is the basis of the creation of all life forms. A single gene was the basis and it's variation produced different organisms. Remember a small amount of alterations of genetic makeup of a certain intensity is enough to produce a different organisms. If the alteration is not that large, the resulting organisms will share some similar characteristics and that doesn't mean they are related. This is were scientists scientists made their mistakes. You are able to determine one's parents because the child is a combination of the genes as I told earlier but extending that to a large amounts of species is erroneous.
It is right to say that the chimps look similar to us because the genetic makeup for their creation was a slight variant of ours not that we are related. Humans never evolved from apes. Our evolution from apes is a theory base on the wrong perspective of genes and the believe that God does not exist. Similar with the big bang theory and the likes. Close scrutiny shows is nonsensical. The story of creation accounts for carbon dating. Dinosaurs, animals closely resembling humans and others existed with Adam but many of them died after his fall because the climate became unfavorable and death began to reign. The fossils are evidence of these animals. Never will you see exactly humans skeletons dated more than than the year since Adam fell. Except you stumble on Adam and Eve. Anything you want to ask?

So are you saying 99.8% of scientists made a mistake?, they ddnt make a mistake for gravity or electromagnetism or the higgs boson, BUT they made a mistake about Evolution and genes!... really?, you said no human bones can be found before adam and eve, but thats where you are wrong, very very wrong.

Science has nothing to do with belief in God, it only cares about facts and it starts wit a blank mind and investigates whats true about the real world, it doesnt hold preconceived notions.

For you to discredit 99.8% of scientists who all agree on evolution, the catholic church, majority of educated people, biologists, geologists, physicists, psychologists and say they made a mistake, wow, thats really something. You are being biased and not looking at the evidence. Like i said before, the oldest human bones found is about 190,000 years to be exact, this is a FACT, look it up if you want to, and your adam lived 6000years ago, doesnt that tell you that its totally a myth?

Moreover, whats your evidence that adam exists?, the book of genesis, which was written by moses and inspired by God. Now wait a minute, Moses wasnt there, he had a relevation, so you mean to tell me that you would blind yourself to all the evidence in the world and take moses revelation instead? Does that seem objective to you?

Its very obvious you dont understand the process behind evolution and thats because you have already blocked your mind towards it from the beginning, if science worked that way? Do you think we would even know the earth revolved around the sun? Or that the universe is 13.8billions years?...be objective and open to evidence

Mind you, dinosaurs got extinct 65million years ago, mammals were not even as rampant as they are now at the time because if they came out, they would be lunch for a hungry dinosaur, so they idea that dinosaur and man lived together is outrageous.

How do we know this? Radio dating, another way geologists use to determine the age of rocks, read up on it...please and please be objective and open to evidence.

Pyrrho:
Is he a she?

Yes he is a she!!!, respect her personality

Martinez19:
when Joshua (with no scientific background) asked God to make the sun stand still, want do you think he meant? He wants to see the sun 'static' and it was done. The record of the sun standing still was as a result of the writer's erroneous and innocent belief that the sun moves and this might have been what influenced egocentric model of the universe. You know the sun appears to move relative to us but it's not. The purpose of Joshua's prayer was to help him finish off his battle. God understood what he meant and answered. If God allowed the atmosphere to spin, the purpose of the prayer will be lost. God did a neat job. The atmosphere did not move. Ecclesiastes 1:5 shows this erroneous belief of the moving sun.
Concerning fossils and DNA, your answer lies in the story of creation . Note that the 6000 years started counting from Adams fall and the number of years he spent in the garden was not specified but I suspect he spent a large amount of time before he fell and you know animals were there with him. The story is a long and detailed one. But before I dish the creation story out any other disagreement?
I commend your thinking, it probes the truth and shows you don't believe blindly but with God everything is all about faith. You must first believe He exists. Heb. 11:6.

Ok, God did a neat job, the atmosphere did not move, but what abt the people who would have been living at the other side of the world? Why ddnt they record that on a certain day, the sun refused to come out?...

Even if 6000years count from Adam's fall, it still doesnt address my point, your assumption is fossils bones are of other animals, but i assure you, we have found human bones, real humans, thats homo sapiens sapiens, and the oldest is 200,000years old, Now if adam was the first man and he fell 6000years ago, where did that human bone of 200,000years come from?

Martinez19:
Remember I said that the people of ancient times had a poor scientific background and the writer's scope of understanding and revelation comes into play. It should occur to you that when they spoke of the sun standing still, they implied it from how they saw it. This is a mistake we were once guilt of until we got this fact from science. It's similar to the ancient Greek belief that the sun was the god apollo MOVING on a burning chariot. To put it in the right sentence, the rotation and revolution of the earth were halted so sun could shine on a particular place on earth continously. If the writers had known this, they would have reported differently. Also note that the the translators then together with the church supported the geocentric model of the universe.
Adam and eve were real people and your answers to the existence of other species verified by fossils lies in the story of creation. The diversity in gene can't be a sufficient evidence to disprove our common ancestry. The essence of genes is not mainly identify as that is not it's sole reason. Gene is to produce certain properties of high peculiarity ie. The genes are for specific traits, design, and capability but you can take advantage of their use for identification.
Talking about gene diversity? What do you expect of humans who vary in skin, intelligence, etc. all determined by genes? And further combination of genetic make up by the intercourse of various races? Have you ever thought of why Adam and Eve were able to produce offspring that might not have had some of their traits (eg. Fat and slim, short and tall, white and black etc.) they had genes that's did this even though not noticeable in them but the genes that made them humans did not change. The most dominant genes mainly at work in you are those of your recent lineage( eg. Your parents and grandma) as we keep on reproducing, the genes from recent lineages is the genes dominant in a child hence gradual departure from previous generation. Mind you the genetic makeup that makes you man is unchanged. More like each intercourse results in rubbing off of genes. Hardly can a man be a carbon copy of his great grandparents.
Apes have our basic shape so we say they must have similar genes with ours makes it so not that we are related. The gene that makes us different is not in them so they can't be entirely like us. The gene is not originally for identification but for characteristics and trait. Any other thing?

You havent clarified my point...
The sun standing still, i am assuming the writers ddnt have sufficient knowledge of science, but i do at least to some extent and if they said the sun stood still, it only meant that it was d earth that stood still, now if the earth stood still, there wud be chaos across d globe, because the atmosphere would be stilling be spinning at the rate the earth was spinning and would send everything flying to the left at a speed of 1100 miles per hour, no living thing would survive, and lets ignore that for a second and say everthing was fine, why ddnt the people at the other side of the world who experienced more darkness than they should have record that event.
Now you obviously misunderstood me when i said genetic diversity, i know what genes are, all i am saying is that if all humans were descended from a man and a woman who lived 6000years ago, we would have a far more similar set of genes, something scientists call a genetic bottleneck, because there wont be enough time to produce the genetic diversity seen in humans now in just 6000years, not possible.
The oldest human bones found is about 200,000years old, and adam is supposedly to have lived 6000years ago, how is that possible?
Your only proof that adam existed is that the bible said so, what if the bible was wrong as it is, because all the evidence points to the contrary.
I am sure you have heard of dna testing, where you use you test dna to verify if organisms relate, well thats what biologists have done, and yes the same way they find that you are your fathers son and you and your cousin share a grandfather, thats how the found out that humans share an ancestor with bonobos and the great apes, infact go back well enough and we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet, its a scientific fact, its not a matter of belief,its either you accept it or not.
So until you bring me real hard evidence of adam and eve and not just say the bible said so, then we up and going, i have shown you evidence that its literally impossible for adam and eve to have existed.

Martinez19:
Contrary to popular christain belief, the creation story agrees with science and I can show you(story for another time). The Bible made us know that Adam and Eve were the first people created. To make it clear, let us look at the whole story of Adam's fall. When God created man, he made man to be like Him in every aspect. The spirit of Adam was that of dominion unlike angels who were created to serve. In eden, everything was perfect as long as man did not eat from the forbidden tree. The serpent there was referring to lucifer Rev. 12:9 not mere serpent. The Bible made us know that lucifer was in the garden along with man Ezekiel 28:13. What was his duty? To serve man. Lucifer was an arch angel full of beauty and perfection Ezekiel 28:13-14 and bore so much of God's light hence the name lucifer meaning light bearer. The problem started when he was filled with pride and iniquity Ezekiel 28:16-17. Let me put it straight to you that angels too have freewill that was why he could corrupt his wisdom for the sake of his splendor(a choice).
Why did he fall? He already planned to sabotage God's plan Isaiah 14: 13-14. Now note that he didn't say he wanted to be God he said would be like God. How? By stealing man's authority and having man's dominion Gen. 1:26 . If you read Isaiah 13-14, you see that he had a throne as a principality meaning angels of his kind were under him. The stars of God referred to the angels. And by stealing man's authority, he would be like man whose was above the angels. Who was the tree of life? Jesus Himself then known as the Word John 1:1. The Bible writers even God used a lot of symbolic representation. Read John 15:1, Matt. 7: 16-20, Rev. 12:9 you see the symbolic representation?
Man was created with free will and with Satan's lies and proposition of sense knowledge, Adam committed treason by selling his authority, forgoing God and taking the forbidden fruit. Eve eating alone was not the main target because Adam was the head and god of the world then, sin could only reign by his permission. As a result of his treason, Satan, Adam and Eve fell terribly. The death referred to in Gen. 2:17 meant separation from God. Adam lost it all and he had to function by sense knowledge instead of revelation. Previously, Adam knew things without being told. Death reigned in Adam' body and on the earth. The demons became who they are because they acted with lucifer in his sabotage Jude. 1:6 so you see they made a choice of abandoning their office for what man had and as a result God placed them in darkness. They lost the light of God in them.
The talking donkey, was a pure working of God. The sun standing still was as a pure working of God. Matt. 19:26 the angel there was not of God but a demon. God's angels don't kill human instead they combat demons and go on errands they don't have the keys of death. Any disagreement on your side? Glad to know you enjoyed the teaching.

Yes, i do disagree greatly here, because you are entering the realm of facts and not interpretation.
First off, Adam and eve were not real people, its not possible for them to have been real, you know why?, there is too much genetic diversity in humans for us to have arisen from a single man and woman 6000years ago, its just not possible. We know now that homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 200,000years give or take 50,000years thanks to fossil records, this is way off from the time adam and eve was supposedly to have lived.
The sun standing still? Seriously? First of the sun is always standing still with respect to earth, its the earth thats rotating on its axes that gives us the sense of night and day, so if that miracle really happened, then the earth must hav stood still and stopped rotating for a few hours, Now ignoring the devastating effects it would have across the globe, some people would have experienced darkness longer than they should and would have recorded it, but no such records exist in any of the ancient civilizations. Why is that?