₦airaland Forum

CNN)A Delta-operated SkyWest plane caught fire on the tarmac of Nashville International Airport Friday morning. The plane was heading to Cincinnati, Ohio, scheduled to depart at 6:34 a.m. CDT.

The plane had just turned on its engine and had not yet reached the runway when the fire began, according to airport spokeswoman Shannon Sumrall.

"The auxiliary power unit caught fire but when they turned the engine back off the fire extinguished itself and the plane was brought back to the gate and all passengers were de-boarded," said Sumrall.

Further information from Delta, SkyWest, and the Federal Aviation Administration is forthcoming.

CNN's Sheena Jones contributed to this report.

Hilarious conversation: guy trying to woo a lady (Snapshot)

Please is this man suffering from dementia

By 800 whistleblower:

When up to a thousand conservative Christian parents in Germany were protesting against a new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum in their schools, homosexuals charged at them and thew human excrement at the Christians. They also ripped pages of the Bible, wiped their anuses with the pages, crumpled them up and threw them at the Christians.

What makes these sodomites so different than Muslims who defecate in churches? The answer is nothing.

According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians:

They were spit at, eggs were thrown, and little bags with feces or color. Cables of loud speakers were torn out …Pages were ripped out of the bible and used to wipe backsides, then formed into a ball and thrown at the parents. …Christians were deeply hurt in this process. At least one banner was snatched and destroyed in front of the eyes of the parents. Marshals were target[ed] with pepper sprays. Shouting by counter-demonstrator[s] made the planned public speaking partly impossible.

The police, instead of bringing order, came and took the side of the sodomites, telling the Christian protesters to leave. As the organizers stated:

Police urged the organizers to dissolve the rally, in order ‘to avoid escalation.

This is why we support the current law in Russia in regards to homosexual propaganda. The sodomites must be suppressed in order to prevent their agenda from spreading and taking root in any component of civilized. This is why God gave us this law:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

But since the Divine Law has been replaced by the dictates of politicians whose souls are seized by the devil, these sodomites “fill the land with violence and continually arouse” the anger of God (Ezekiel 8:17)

St. Peter described governors as “them that are sent by him [God] for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Peter 2:14) Evildoers would include sodomites, since St. Peter’s moral code would have been from the Divine Law.

In the words of St. Paul when he addressed the sodomites in his Epistle to the Romans:

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such thingsdeserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

The sodomites know they do evil, and we as Christians know that the Divine Law must be imposed upon them, or else they will “continue to do these very things”.

8+17+6=31

That momemt....when your best friends asked you to save a sit for them

And found this snake.

More

More

Nice park pictures at my vicinity for your eyez only

Following the legalization of gay marriage across America by the Supreme Court last week, Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe, who is known for his extreme anti-gay views has been making headlines. Earlier this week was a marriage proposal to president Obama and yesterday, he allegedly said what you see below during another interview;

"Even satan wasn't Gay, he chose to approach naked Eve instead of naked Adam."

An unidentified man who is believed to have secretly clung on to a plane has fallen to his death, while another is in hospital.
The two men are believed to have been clinging to a British Airways flight from Johannesburg to Heathrow.
The victim was found on the roof of notonthehighstreet.com's headquarters on Kew Road, Richmond, at about 09:35 BST on Thursday. Police said his death was being treated as unexplained.

The man who was injured is in a critical condition in hospital.
The Met Police said it could not confirm if the two cases were linked.
In a statement, the force said: "At this time there is no evidence to link the death to the discovery of a stowaway in the undercarriage of a plane at Heathrow Airport; however this is one line of enquiry into identifying the deceased and the circumstances of his death."

The surviving man, who is believed to be aged 24, was found in the undercarriage of the plane at about 08:20 BST and taken to a west London hospital.
Officers believe they know his identity but are awaiting confirmation.
The 5,600-mile journey (9,012km) from South Africa to the UK usually takes about 11 hours.

BY: YESHA CALLAHAN

When he’s not singing or producing music, Akon is busy providing sustainable living options to people in African countries. The Senegalese-American singer’s initiative, appropriately called Akon Lighting Africa, aims to supply electricity to 600 million people in Africa who lack it with the launch of the Solar Academy.


Located in Bamako, Mali, the Solar Academy will help African engineers and entrepreneurs develop skills that will enable them to produce solar power. Experts will be on hand to help the participants with training and equipment, according to a Reuters report.

According to Akon Lighting Africa, the goal of the academy is to teach people how to maintain solar-powered electricity systems and microgrids. Both systems have been growing quickly in rural parts of Africa. In a continent that has 320 days of sun a year, roping in its natural resources will be valuable to the solar-energy efforts.

“We have the sun and innovative technologies to bring electricity to homes and communities. We now need to consolidate African expertise,” said Samba Baithily, who founded Akon Lighting Africa with Akon and Thione Niang.

The organization also hopes to create jobs with its initiative.

“We expect the Africans who graduate from this center to devise new, innovative, technical solutions,” said Niang. “With this academy, we can capitalize on Akon Lighting Africa and go further.”

davien:
Now when did I claim "scientists don't think outside the box" as compared to "There's no outside the box here"?
You built a straw man out of my response.

This might be the second or third time I have asked you to explain what you meant by the statement below.

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics

Dont bring in previous quotes. Explain what you meant by "There's no outside the box here unless you're not "accustomed to physics"

davien:
And concerning the multiverse as your tongue in cheek explanation,you've not given sufficient ways how one could peer into another supposed universe nor if the configurations of that universe would allow you to peek into it if there's any atall...hence another nonsensical question.

Your question lies on assumptions that aren't even close to be proven...

#1 multiverse with same configurations...
#2 Other universe would house an observer..
#3 Observer could peer into our universe

Without answers to those questions you have a null question.......

Do you know the meaning of ASSUMPTION? It means a thing that is accepted as true without proof. The following are ways we could use the word assumption: assume I can fly without a wing or aid. Assume humans have three legs or eye at back of their head. That would be awesome especially the eye at the back of the head. That means no one would be able to sneak behind us. Assumption dont need to be necessary true and proven to be true. It is just to make one think deeply about a concept or anything.

davien:
Sure I didn't, just like I didn't explain all over today what relativity is....again, poor comprehension skills....



[quote author=davien post=33715532]look who's accusing me of equivocating....when did I tell you scientists don't think outside the box?

Please find your post below, and what do you mean by that?

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics...

davien:
Grab a dictionary...maybe you'll learn something new. .I'm referring to the dull and ordinary reasoning you're using when it comes to physics,I even went in detail(quoted below)
^^^^

I knew what it means. But what I dont understand is the context at which you are using it here in this discussion. Why would you say a reasoning is ordinary rather than incoherent or illogical. Please forgive me if I dont have metaphysical or supernatural reasoning.

davien:
Perspective....again I am shocked at your comprehension skills and would strongly recommend that childrens book for you to read up on....
And mind you,analogies aren't equivocations....apparently you also lack that comprehension...
Back to the answer...I used your own line of logic.

I lack comprehension of what you are saying because you have not been coherent or consistent in a logical and sensible way. Try and think for yourself and say something reasonable and see if I will not comprehend.

davien:
You can say forty objects and it still would be a nonsensical question, because you are talking about motion and more specifically relativity but you want to ignore the perspective of each observer....

Now this is where thinking outside the boxing comes in handy. You were asking what universe will the third observer be while observing. Have you heard of the multiverse theory? Now assume you are in one of those universe looking down or up onto our universe here. I think that should solve your problem of inability to assume. If you are able to do this, you will then understand that an observer's perspective dont matter anymore. And dont tell me scientist and physicists dont assume things because they have assume alot of things to make their theory work. They also assumed the multiverse theory without a single science and empirical evidence. Just their minds.

davien:
when making an assumption it has to be an educated one, not one that doesn't follow or is based on faulty reasoning..

And who determines when an assumption is an educated one?

davien:
Hmmmm
Are you sure? :-

Am very sure mate. Am incline to think you are actually the one equivocating in an effort to avoid answering the question. Hope you noticed you didnt answer any of the questions.

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics..

Actually it is people like you that read one or two physics article that dont think outside the box regarding any information you'd get from the articles. Great discoveries are made by scientist that dont think like everyone else. Infact, science is about thinking outside the box, thats how new and exciting things get discovered. So dont tell me physicists or scientist dont think outside the box.

davien:
It is a point....that is the problem with you...you want to impose mundane reasoning to physics which is the worst thing one could do in the study...

You always use the word mundane. Could you please explain to me the sense in which you use this word?

davien:
How can you know something is moving without a perspective? In all forms of motion I.e ;
Oscillatory motion
Linear motion...etc
A perspective is always established otherwise you're talking nonsense...

Remember that I said earlier that you are always equivocating to avoid answering my simple question. How does motion and point of reference fall into the question you were trying to answer. Your answers are so beside the point. Even in this question you trying to answer I said "both objects" that means two things. Did I say something is moving without a perspective?

davien:
How can the "observer" be outside the "experiment"(which is the universe)....
Trying to throw in your favorite character are you?
Because it's akin to looking at the sun, moon, and stars then concluding from mundane reasoning that the earth is stationary and everything moves around the earth...
This is why I keep asking if you have comprehension problems........

That is called reasoning. What you fail to understand is that thats just an assumption. I wish I can continue this conversation in am open minded atmosphere, and with reasons that can lead to logical conclusions. I have to end here.

davien:
consequently yes...in your perspective in the car(at a constant speed) you are stationary while they moving away from you...and in their perspective the same applies...it's RELATIVE to each observer's perspective...

In the classical sense or mundane reasoning,the people are stationary, this is very fallacious...you can't put one observer's perspective over another...

It's RELATIVE it doesn't make a difference who moves away from what....the increase in distance away from the any light source would still bear the same result...hence the above explanation I gave you

This just shows you weren't ever paying attention...
Here's a recap...;
Space expands and it can expand faster than light at sufficient distances...
Expansion of space pulls galaxies away from each other...
Galaxies relative to each other which are moving away are redshifting in either observation...
Galaxies spaced twice relative to you are 2x moving away and so are you to any observer there...

Do you have problems comprehending this?!

Forgive me for I am not able to segregate your response and give my response on each point you have made. I dont know how to. So am going to address all points below.

Of course, I don't have a problem comprehending the above points.

Rather, I have been trying to make you think outside the box but you are strongly bonded to it.

On the moving car example that we are using. You said we cant impose one observer's perspective over another. Which might be true, but thats not the point. The point we want to establish is whether both objects are actually moving not based on what a moving or stationary observer thinks or feel about another moving or stationary observer. Ok. Let's throw in a third observer. Lets assume this third observer is outside our experiment. Looking at two galaxies this observer will be able to tell that they are both receding from each other.

And if the light wave can shift to the red side of the spectrum from an observer's point of view when the observer is "moving away" from the light source. Could you tell me why I should not conclude that the observer is the one moving away from a literally stationary light source.

NDPVF:
Am so blessed to have hailed from this state.
Proudly Akwa Ibomite.
God bless Godswill

AMEN

God bless Udom Emmanuel
God bless all Akwa Ibomites
God bless our Land of Promise
God bless those who wishes us good,and may those who wish evil to our land of promise,perish[/quote]Y
AMEN

Cc,Ikwerreboy.
Come and compare your state with mine.[/quote]

davien:
I just wanted to clarify that we were saying the same thing...so it's best to always ee specific..
It's practically the same thing to each observer....when you're in a car and you're accelerating, people you pass look like they're moving away from you and to them you'd be moving away from them...that's why speed is RELATIVE to each observer...

It's still a redshift

If a source of the light is moving away from an observer, then redshift (z > 0) occurs; if the source moves towards the observer, then blueshift (z < 0) occurs. This is true for all electromagnetic waves and is explained by the Doppler effect.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift


I could point you to a simplified childrens annotation if you're interested...

I honestly think you are not paying attention to what my questions askes you.

On the speeding car example you used above. you said the people you sped pass look like they are moving away from you (the one in the car). Now talk facts, not what it looks like. Are the people actaully moving? Or it looks like they are moving but in actaulity not moving. Which one is it?

I said, what is the effects of light wave when you (the observer) are moving away from the light source? Not the light source moving away from you. Is it blue or redshift or no effects at all. Of course you said redshift. But you got me confused of your answer by posting an article from wiki telling me the effects of light wave when the light source is moving away from the obsever. Thats not what I want to know. I want to know the effects when the observer is moving away from the light source.

If your answer is still redshift, my question is how can you tell that the observer isnt the one moving away? Or the observer and the light source moving away from each other at the same time. Why are now so sure that a light sources 2x the distance is moving 2x fast?

davien:
Again, no object travels faster than light....
And it's like this....light travels at a finite speed...so nobody or nothing is stationary...light or the light that was once closest to you will meet you...
Or if you're a physics junkie d=s(or c)/t ,
For a certain distance(d), lights speed(c) can travel to you at some future certain time(t)...and since space is linked with time...an object that is let's say spaced by two galaxies is moving 2x as fast away from you...so it can only be seen at a point in time when it was closer and by the time you've seen it....it's moved much further away....

You seem not to know when someone agrees with you. Regarding object traveling faster than light because of the expansion of space, how is want I said earlier different from yours.

Regarding your comment about galaxies two times the distance, moving 2x as fast away from us. My question is, if nothing is stationary in the unverse. If everything is moving at a speed close or faster than light, then how do you tell if the thing 2x the distance and moving 2x the speed is moving away from us and not us moving two time away from the thing?

Another question is;
What is the effects of light wave when you moving away from the light source? Red or blue shift, or nothing at all? Note this is not a random question. It relates to the points raised above.

If 1=4

Why won't
4=1

davien:
read my post again... I didn't say objects move faster than light(that is impossible)..
I said space itself expands faster than light so by the time you see the light from any object,it's much further than the distance the light comes towards you....

I understood what you meant by object moving faster than light, thats why I said as a result of relativity. Which means expanding space carries objects along with it as it expands faster than light.

My question now is, if space expands faster than light and carries a light source with it. How is it that we are able to see the light from billions of light years away. It is just like running on a treadmill with someone standing in front of it. You will run on it but never gets to the person in front of your treadmill.

Hope you understand the question.

davien:
It's quite simple...the answer is relativity...space between objects can expand faster than the speed of light(no law is broken here as space is not an object, merely a gap between objects)......So objects within the universe could be billions of times apart and yet be younger than the distance...

And 20 billion used to be the figure till more data was accumulated that drew into account more variables like dark matter/energy etc...

It's sill the same thing basically, light has to bounce off whatever you see then hit your photosensitive cells...

Hmmmm...I'd like to point out that my thoughts on the process itself is highly irrelevant(seeing that I'm not an authority on the subject)...but from what I've read it's derived from many things like;

The propagation of hydrogen and helium which are the cornerstones for other elements...I.e by fusion reactions and daughter decay processes...

The rate at which the universe is expanding....this is known by the doppler effect...when waves are sent towards a body the closer it gets the more compact it appears and the further it is the less compact it is....since light is a wave and the frequency of light red-shifts when receding,then galaxies red-shifting are moving away from us...

I can only remember these two....right now I can hardly remember them....and the lack of light to charge here sure doesn't help...so make with these till I can hopefully recharge tomorrow...

I have question for you regarding your comment above.

If objects in space can move faster than light as a result of relativity, how is it we could still see the lights from such objects?

KingEbukasBlog:
Before I start you 're saying...
→ The sun , moon , earth are not billions of years old ?
→ That it took God six thousand years to create ?
→ The creation story may not be taken as literal
→ I support evolutionists ?
→ Elucidate this

→In point six , vegetation can't be part of the pre-adamic age?

I believe God created the universe 6-7 thousand years ago.
On your point six, I believe you are mistaking the destruction of the earth by water during Naoh's days to be pre Adamic.

davien:
Eddycolo you are wrong in that,the age of the universe is established from astronomy to be 13.8 billion years(ranges to 14) and there is no name attributed to the people that hold this view because it's a scientific proposition...

It's creationists that invented the word "evolutionist" to compound anything they don't agree with(ranging from biology, to geology, to astronomy) ..

Plus the scientific method used to determine that age isn't about how far light bounced off things(although it's part of it) because the visible universe is close to 46 billion light years in radius I.e the radius we can see stuff in the universe...compared to a 13.8 billion year age.

Sure, 13.8- 20 billion years. 20 billion is the maximum I have ever heard. For convenience I used 20 billion.
You are right about the radius of the universe to be 46 billion years. Multiplying 46 by 2, you get about 96 billion years for the diameter of the know universe. Have you ever ask yourself why the universe is 13.8 billion years, and the diameter is 96 billion years?

About how the age of the universe was determined, I said they calculated the time it takes light from the furthest galaxies at the edge the universe to reach earth. I didnt mention any bouncing off anything.

I will like to know how you think they came about this age.

Thanks

Hi king, I wrote a review of your write up here:
https://www.nairaland.com/2307653/review-10-things-bible-never

And am open to discussion about it. If you want to. Thanks.

This is the original write up by KingEbukasBlog under review.
https://www.nairaland.com/2305535/dealing-misconceptions-10-things-bible


I can't help but noticed the misconceptions about biblical creation in the write up of KingEbukasBlog titled "Dealing With Misconceptions : 10 Things The Bible Never Said About Creation" on the religion section of nairaland. Naturally, I would have just minded my business and not write a review about it. But I couldn't, simply because am allergic to nonsense, especially when it comes to religion. Infact, after reading through some of your points, it made me giggle and I gave out a short, spasmodic laugh to the point My friend looked at me and thought I was going mad.

I am simply going to point out some areas I find particularly disturbing in your write up, and probable suggest or admonish you to view it from a different perspective. I want to make it clear that Am not writing this review to tell you that you are wrong (which you definitely are), but that we might all learn from each other and not jump to conclusions where you have no clue.

In your write up titled "Dealing With Misconceptions : 10 Things The Bible Never Said About Creation" you listed 10 misconceptions about creation as written in the bible which you thought needed added interpretations.

Your 10 points are;

1.The beginning was 6,000 years ago
2.The earth was created 6,000 years ago
3.Light and darkness were created in day 1 as seen in Genesis 1:54.
4.The sun , moon and stars were created on day 4.
5.Animals , birds ,man were first created on day 5 and 6
6.Vegetation came forth for the first time in day 3 .
7.The earth was created 6,000 years ago
8.That Adam was the first man God created.
9.That the universe , earth are a product of evolution.
10. Man is a product of evolution - from lower life forms , to cave men
The Bible says God created man perfect and intelligent

First, I will like to point out that the title of your write up is a bit misleading because your write up is a mixture of what the bible actually never said about creation (point 1' 2, 9 and 10. Point 7 is same as point 1) and what the bible actually said about creation (point 3, 4, 5, 6 and . From what I understood about your write up, you found the latter to be incoherent and thereby decided to give an interpretations base on your understand.

Lets start from your first two points. Am going to address your point 1, 2 & 7. together since they are almost the same.

1.The beginning was 6,000 years ago.
2.The earth was created 6,000 years ago.
7.The earth was created 6,000 years ago

On this points you quoted genesis 1:1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". And you went ahead to state that the above verse has always been misunderstood. And that the original creation of the universe was actually billions of years ago.

Well, the only people that actually believe the universe to be billions of years old are mostly evolutionists. I know there is a great controversy over the age of the universe which has been a subject of constant debate among creationists and evolutionists. For creationists, the universe was created about 6-7 thousand years ago. Whilst for evolutionists, the universe was created about 16-20 billion years ago.

The question now is, how did the two set of bodies arrived at these dates?
For the creationists, they believed in a literally six days creation as written in bible. So from the time Adam was created the bible gave the age Adam lived before he gave birth to cain and abel and later Seth. The bible gave how old Adam was before he died. The bible also gave the age Seth lived before he gave birth to Enos and the age of Seth before he (Seth ) died. Same goes for Cainan, mahalaleel and the rest down the line. If one add up all the genealogy from Adam to the time of Noah (of the flood ) you end up getting 4 thousand years. If you add to this present time you will get 6-7 thousand years for the age of the universe. This is how creationists ended up believing the universe was created 6-7 thousand years ago.

For the evolutionists, how did they come up with 16- 20 billion years?
Well, I don't want to go into much details because a detailed explanation is more than the scope of this review. The most important thing to note is that evolutionists claimed they were able to measure how long light takes to reach earth from the furthest galaxies located at the edge of the universe. Given the known speed of light, their calculations came up to 16-20 billion years for the age of the universe.

So it can be established that who ever believes in 6-7 thousand years for the age of the earth is a creationist. And 16-20 billion years for the age of the earth is an evolutionist. We also have people that are hybrids (thats my naming). They believe some of boths sets of ideas. Just like KingEbukasBlog.

From what I understood from point 1 & 2 and subsequently point 7. You did not only believe the world to be billions of years old, you also believe that genesis 1:1 & 1:2 were referencing two time periods. And the first period you called pre adamic age in which you believe were populated by pre adamic men. In other words, there were actual men (not angels), with flesh and blood that lived on earth before Adam. The second time period which you said was the time of creation of Adam. You remember I told you I giggled why reading some of the points? This is the point that made me giggle. Now, lets both go through the verses that has led you to believe this. Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 gave limited information on the creation. In genesis 1:1 it says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" in verse 2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." And the waters which is mentioned here on which the spirit of the lord hovered, you believe it is water from the previous creation or world that was destroyed by God. My question is, what evidence or revlation do you have to show that that water on which the spirit of God hovered was from the previous world. Or are you mistaking the destruction of earth during the time of Noah's flood to be the supposedly destruction of the earth in your pre Adamic age? Noah's flood was 4 thousand years ago. Water from which earth was created from was 6-7 thousand years ago. Both waters (creation and Noah's water) are same water. I can actaully see clearly where you got confused. In 2 peters 3:5-7 you quoted to support your pre Adamic destruction of earth by water. I honestly believe you misplaced that quotation. See below.

2 Peter 3:5-7
Verse 5, "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water", verse 6, "By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed". Verse 7, "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly"

I want to point out since it is not obvious to you that verse 5' is just reiterating the biblical creation account of Genesis. The first book try to make us understand that the earth was formed "out of the water". Remember that God commanded the water to gether in one location and let dry land appear. God called the dry land "earth" and the gathering together of the waters He called seas.

whilst verse 5 was referencing the only biblical account of creation, verse 6 was referencing the Noah's flood. When the earth was destroyed with water. This is clearly intuitive. If you can't see it. That means you must have missed your sunday school class on the day Noah's was taught. In that case I would suggest you do you research (google search should do ) on this very chapter to find what these verses are referring to.

I will discuss your point 3 & 4 together since they are almost the same.

3.Light and darkness were created in day 1 as seen in Genesis 1:5
4.The sun , moon and stars were created on day 4.

In the first chapter of the book of Genesis 1:3, on the first day, God created light when He said let there be light. Then later on in verse 14 of Genesis 1, "God said let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, for seasons, and for days and for years". In verse 15, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and it was so". This happened on the 4th day.

From the above passage, intuitively no one would need further interpretations that that verse is referring to our sun.

So the confusion comes in after this verse, because light was being created in day one and day four. Which to you is incoherent and you subsequently rejected the day four created light in favour of day one. And claimed that " The functionalities of the sun and moon on earth were restored on day 1"
What you failed to understand is that the sun was not created until day four. From my understanding, in as much as light was created on day one, in day four a light "source" was created "for earth" which is the sun. And without this sun, there will be darkness on earth 24/7. So despite light has already been created in day one, God had to created a special light for earth. The sun. It is as a result of this light that the earth has its day, night, year, and season.

To understand this separate events, I sometimes think of the light in day one as a blue print for a building and light in day four as an actual building (guided by the blue print) on a particular location. Or you can think of it as the day earth was created (clay: day one) and the day man was created from earth (clay: day six). Man is clay moulded into shape by God. Now, Because man is made from clay (earth) are you going to argue man was made on day one?

On your next point (point 5)

5.Animals , birds ,man were first created on day 5 and 6

According to you "Some were created during the pre-adamic age but were destroyed by the first universal flood (Lucifer's flood)" I was wondering where you got this idea from. There is no where in the bible that made reference to pre adamic age. the bible passage Isaiah 14:12-14 you quoted to support you pre adamic age was referencing the kingdom of Babylon. And Babylon is not pre adamic age.

Your point 6 and the conclusion is literally a joke.
Your point 7' I have already addressed above.
Your point 8, you quoted some bible passages which I have a already demonstrated that your interpretations is misplaced.
I have not issues with you point 9 & 10.

In conclusion, I would say you are victim of evolutionary and atheistic manipulation. They are trying to make the biblical interpretations of creations fit into an evolutionary perspective. I will advise you to look for alternative explanation of everything you are researching and use you intuitions to come to a logical conclusions. If you intend to talk about most or some of the points I made here in disagreement to yours, I will be willing to. Thanks and God bless.

Is this innovation or suicide?