Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1247341 members, 1663364 topics. Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 at 10:57 PM

Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion (2659 Views)

Why Science Is Better Than Religion And Always Has Been / Atheism Is Another Religion / Say No To Religion! Science Is The Truth (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 7:38pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf: Ze Big B.ang

In a little more detail, the modern theory of cosmic origins goes like this. Some 15 billion or so years ago, the universe erupted from an enormously energetic, singular event, which spewed forth all of space and all of matter. (You don't have to search far to locate where the big bang occurred, for it took place where you are now as well as everywhere else; in the beginning, all locations we now see as separate were the same location.) The temperature of the universe a mere 10-43 seconds after the bang, the so-called Planck time, is calculated to have been about 1032 Kelvin, some 10 trillion trillion times hotter than the deep interior of the sun. As time passed, the universe expanded and cooled, and as it did, the initial homogeneous, roiling hot, primordial cosmic plasma began to form eddies and clumps. At about a hundred-thousandth of a second after the bang, things had cooled sufficiently (to about 10 trillion Kelvin—about a million times hotter than the sun's interior) for quarks to clump together in groups of three, forming protons and neutrons. About a hundredth of a second later, conditions were right for the nuclei of some of the lightest elements in the periodic table to start congealing out of the cooling plasma of particles. For the next three minutes, as the simmering universe cooled to about a billion degrees, the predominant nuclei that emerged were those of hydrogen and helium, along with trace amounts of deuterium ("heavy" hydrogen) and lithium. This is known as the period of primordial nucleosynthesis.

Not a whole lot happened for the next few hundred thousand years, other than further expansion and cooling. But then, when the temperature had dropped to a few thousand degrees, wildly streaming electrons slowed down to the point where atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium, could capture them, forming the first electrically neutral atoms. This was a pivotal moment: from this point forward the universe, by and large, became transparent. Prior to the era of electron capture, the universe was filled with a dense plasma of electrically charged particles—some with positive charges like nuclei and others with negative charges, like electrons. Photons, which interact only with electrically charged objects, were bumped and jostled incessantly by the thick bath of charged particles, traversing hardly any distance before being deflected or absorbed. The charged-particle barrier to the free motion of photons would have made the universe appear almost completely opaque, much like what you may have experienced in a dense morning fog or a blinding, gusty snowstorm. But when negatively charged electrons were brought into orbit around positively charged nuclei, yielding electrically neutral atoms, the charged obstructions disappeared and the dense fog lifted. From that time onward, photons from the big bang have traveled unhindered and the full expanse of the universe gradually came into view.

About a billion years later, with the universe having substantially calmed down from its frenetic beginnings, galaxies, stars, and ultimately planets began to emerge as gravitationally bound clumps of the primordial elements. Today, some 15 billion or so years after the bang, we can marvel at both the magnificence of the cosmos and at our collective ability to have pieced together a reasonable and experimentally testable theory of cosmic origin
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:41pm On Dec 26, 2012
Lol. Wiegraf this tells nothing of the collocation 'big bang'.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 8:14pm On Dec 26, 2012
So let's see, it's a popular science book, and he uses the word 'eruption'. That does not mean explosion btw, at all.

www.google.com/m?q=eruption+definition+&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new

1. An act or instance of erupting
2. A sudden outpouring of a particular substance from somewhere

Erupt:

www.google.com/search?client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new&redir_esc=&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=erupt+definition+

1. (of a volcano) Become active and eject lava, ash,
and gases
2. Be ejected from an active volcano

And I'm still uncomfortable with the word, but it would do, just for the layman though.

I'm guessing you're going to run off into lalalala land with even just that, so let's look at another excerpt from the same man:

brian greene:
"A common misconception is
that the Big Bang provides a theory of
cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang
is a theory ... that delineates cosmic
evolution from a split second after
whatever happened to bring the
universe into existence, but it says
nothing at all about time zero itself.
And since, according to the Big Bang
theory, the bang is what is supposed to
have happened at the beginning, the
Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells
us nothing about what banged, why it
banged, how it banged, or, frankly,
whether it really banged at all.

Expansion, all the big ba.ng is about. No explosion, no need whatsoever to assume one. And note here 'b.ang' is not even supposed mean an explosion, it's just the word he uses to substitute for whatever process caused the expansion. For whatever released the restraints on all that energy that had been packed together, very unlikely an explosion. So, in essence, he's saying the energy might have come from nothing and there never were any restraints, even if unlikely.



With that, we're done here brah, I've wasted enough time on this.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 8:17pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus: Lol. Wiegraf this tells nothing of the collocation 'big bang'.

Yes, and koala bears are literally bears. That quote wasn't really for your benefit (I lied). In your case, the delusion is far too strong lol
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:38pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf: So, in essence, he's saying the energy might have come from nothing and there never were any restraints, even if unlikely. .
First things first. Brian Greene is nobody to know better. As expected, his claim is different from the theory I know. To call the slam a process is an intellectual nonsense. Their is no correlation, whether literally or metaphorically. Hubble knew exactly what he meant when he proposed the theory. How does bang translate to process? Haba!
Another blunder. If he's saying the energy come from nothing as you proposed, I'm sorry to say, he is a dimwit.
Seems you've forgotten so fast that, 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:39pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

Yes, and koala bears are literally bears. That quote wasn't really for your benefit (I lied). In your case, the delusion is far too strong lol
lolol. Why do you have to lie?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 9:23pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus: First things first. Brian Greene is nobody to know better. As expected, his claim is different from the theory I know. To call the slam a process is an intellectual nonsense. Their is no correlation, whether literally or metaphorically. Hubble knew exactly what he meant when he proposed the theory. How does bang translate to process? Haba!
Another blunder. If he's saying the energy come from nothing as you proposed, I'm sorry to say, he is a dimwit.
Seems you've forgotten so fast that, 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'.

You've forgotten something from nothing so quickly? Trust me, brian greene knows a lot more than those you sourced. At the very least, his reputation is much more solid.

But we get to the most salient bit of this post: you don't know what the big b.ang is. Add that to the fact you don't understand how science works, and I can the problems
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 9:29pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

You've forgotten something from nothing so quickly? Trust me, brian greene knows a lot more than those you sourced. At the very least, his reputation is much more solid.

But we get to the most salient bit of this post: you don't know what the big b.ang is. Add that to the fact you don't understand how science works, and I can the problems
Lol. What kind of something will be in nothing, when the idea of nothing here is to be non-existent?
Lol. In what way does a b.ang equal to a process?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 9:41pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus: Lol. What kind of something will be in nothing, when the idea of nothing here is to be non-existent?
Lol. In what way does a b.ang equal to a process?

We've done the first bit already

In what ways are evolution or general relativity processes? *smh*
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:37am On Dec 27, 2012
wiegraf:

We've done the first bit already

In what ways are evolution or general relativity processes? *smh*
Lol. This question is clueless. The thing is, evolution and relativity are not wrongly used as you claimed with the big bang. The words point to changes and relativism. Apply it to the big ban.g. Has their ever being any theory, whose meaning cannot be drawn from how it is termed?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 9:22am On Dec 27, 2012
Reyginus: Lol. This question is clueless. The thing is, evolution and relativity are not wrongly used as you claimed with the big bang. The words point to changes and relativism. Apply it to the big ban.g. Has their ever being any theory, whose meaning cannot be drawn from how it is termed?

Erm, so, evolution and gr cannot be called processes? You do realize that was what that response was for, yes?

Regardless, let's examine our latest strawmen. Are you sure science didn't introduce the words into english lexicon? The word 'evolution' comes from a latin word which means unrolling. Hmm. In most cases one wouldn't say evolution is about unrolling, yes?

Quanta comes from a word that means 'how much'. Interesting, it seems to say nothing about small sizes.

Regardless of origin of words, I'm not sure how one would know gr is related to gravity without being explicitly told so, or do you?

And big ban.g doesn't say anything about the processes involved of course, as most people do not associate violent expansions with
explosions. Just as you seemingly were not able to deduce the expansion from the term, even if you erroneously attributed it to an explosion (btw, I hope you can spot sarcasm)

You are wasting time with this particularly silly nonsense. You've been shown evidence EVERWHERE that it does not say anything about explosions.

Science does NOT make unfounded claims then pass them up as fact. Therefore it would not add explosions to the BB THEORY (note the word theory, indicating a framework, you know, like other scientific theories) when there is no reason whatsoever to add one. Shikena.

Thank you though for demonstrating the difference between the scientific method and the religious approach. Science doesn't draw conclusions then attempt to make nature conform to them, it does the opposite. No evidence (even logical), then no explosion. You want to add explosions, suit yourself. I suppose you should add god as well if it makes you happier. But non of these requirements are scientific in any shape or form, they are unfounded claims made by your subjective bias. They have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, logical or empirical.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 10:00am On Dec 27, 2012
wiegraf:

Erm, so, evolution and gr cannot be called processes? You do realize that was what that response was for, yes?

Regardless, let's examine our latest strawmen. Are you sure science didn't introduce the words into english lexicon? The word 'evolution' comes from a latin word which means unrolling. Hmm. In most cases one wouldn't say evolution is about unrolling, yes?

Quanta comes from a word that means 'how much'. Interesting, it seems to say nothing about small sizes.

Regardless of origin of words, I'm not sure how one would know gr is related to gravity without being explicitly told so, or do you?

And big ban.g doesn't say anything about the processes involved of course, as most people do not associate violent expansions with
explosions. Just as you seemingly were not able to deduce the expansion from the term, even if you erroneously attributed it to an explosion (btw, I hope you can spot sarcasm)

You are wasting time with this particularly silly nonsense. You've been shown evidence EVERWHERE that it does not say anything about explosions.

Science does NOT make unfounded claims then pass them up as fact. Therefore it would not add explosions to the BB THEORY (note the word theory, indicating a framework, you know, like other scientific theories) when there is no reason whatsoever to add one. Shikena.

Thank you though for demonstrating the difference between the scientific method and the religious approach. Science doesn't draw conclusions then attempt to make nature conform to them, it does the opposite. No evidence (even logical), then no explosion. You want to add explosions, suit yourself. I suppose you should add god as well if it makes you happier. But non of these requirements are scientific in any shape or form, they are unfounded claims made by your subjective bias. They have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, logical or empirical.

You are not getting it. Before anything can be termed a process, their must be a concord with its etymology and what it seeks to explain. That synergy is evidently lacking, if we are to follow your explanation.
You don't have to look at it like that. To be accurate, the syllables in the word are seperated from each other. Then individually, before later co-joining to get the meaning. In 'evolution', we have a poly-syllabic word, 4 syllables precisely. But if you are observant, you would see 'evolve' as the root meaning. 'tion', 'the state of'. Now to the latin side. 'Unrolling' in the connotative sense, is to have different phases of a particular thing. Because a thing rolling is not stagnant, it moves. The circular motion it creates while moving indicates it is happening within an entity. Their is a connection.
Quanta, is not about how much? Really? SMH.
Can we say the same of the 'big b.ang'?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 10:17am On Dec 27, 2012
Reyginus: You are not getting it. Before anything can be termed a process, their must be a concord with its etymology and what it seeks to explain. That synergy is evidently lacking, if we are to follow your explanation.
You don't have to look at it like that. To be accurate, the syllables in the word are seperated from each other. Then individually, before later co-joining to get the meaning. In 'evolution', we have a poly-syllabic word, 4 syllables precisely. But if you are observant, you would see 'evolve' as the root meaning. 'tion', 'the state of'. Now to the latin side. 'Unrolling' in the connotative sense, is to have different phases of a particular thing. Because a thing rolling is not stagnant, it moves. The circular motion it creates while moving indicates it is happening within an entity. Their is a connection.
Quanta, is not about how much? Really? SMH.
Can we say that of the 'big b.ang'?

Like how you deduced from the term that an expansion is involved?

Or how you are cognizant of the fact that your interpretion of those words is subjective, like the bolded indicates.

And this has naught to do with this actually, as term is a *drum rolls please*............ Misnomer!

Suddenly you trust scientists to not make mistakes. Incredible. I thought your initial argument is they make unfounded claims and therefore cannot be trusted. Most unfounded claims look like mistakes or accidents to me. You've changed your mind so soon? To suit your needs maybe? But this is no mistake actually, I've told you how the term originated.

Simple google of the question, "was the big b.ang an explosion?", no need to even add expansion to the search, then please tell me what 90+% of the credible results say. Especially the ones not dumbed down. For instance, look at the peer reviewed scholarly articles (all of those clearly state expansion)...


Na wa.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 10:31am On Dec 27, 2012
wiegraf:

Like how you deduced from the term that an expansion is involved?

Or how you are cognizant of the fact that your interpretion of those words is subjective, like the bolded indicates.

And this has naught to do with this actually, as term is a *drum rolls please*............ Misnomer!

Suddenly you trust scientists to not make mistakes. Incredible. I thought your initial argument is they make unfounded claims and therefore cannot be trusted. Most unfounded claims look like mistakes or accidents to me. You've changed your mind so soon? To suit your needs maybe? But this is no mistake actually, I've told you how the term originated.

Simple google of the question, "was the big b.ang an explosion?", no need to even add expansion to the search, then please tell me what 90+% of the credible results say. Especially the ones not dumbed down. For instance, look at the peer reviewed scholarly articles (all of those clearly state expansion)...


Na wa.
The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable.
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken.
Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.
Are we not done with google?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 10:38am On Dec 27, 2012
Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable.
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken.
Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.
Are we not done with google?

No.

What sort of ignorance are you encouraging now?

Kai, na wa ohhh, lwkmd
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 10:49am On Dec 27, 2012
Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable.
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken.
Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.
Are we not done with google?

Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 11:36am On Dec 27, 2012
Kay 17:

Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.

Seriously, the amount of procastinating I've been doing recently has balooned, or expanded, again... *smh* . I guess I go work now oga...
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 4:46pm On Dec 27, 2012
wiegraf:

No.

What sort of ignorance are you encouraging now?

Kai, na wa ohhh, lwkmd
so?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 4:50pm On Dec 27, 2012
Kay 17:

Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.
What proponents are better than the theory propounder? We will have first accept that hubble was wrong inorder to accomodate the view of any proponent.
Points? Haha. What is the point of making any further point if the already posing ones have not been fully understood.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 10:35pm On Dec 27, 2012
Reyginus: What proponents are better than the theory propounder? We will have first accept that hubble was wrong inorder to accomodate the view of any proponent.
Points? Haha. What is the point of making any further point if the already posing ones have not been fully understood.

And Hubble proposed an explosion and coined the name big ban.g??
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 1:53am On Dec 28, 2012
Reyginus: so?

You want me to knowingly become ignorant? Wetin u dey smoke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

You've been calling hubble the originator for a while despite naming lemaitre and freidman earlier....*smh*

wiki:
Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (intergalactic space) are found to have a Doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[1] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed that the Universe is expanding and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.[2][3][4][5][6] Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.[7] The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[8]

Expanding in regards to earth and EACH OTHER. Uniform expansion != explosion, which would have a centre....


This is pathetic bros. If you're for a name the scientific community has been trying to sell, to no avail as BB is quite catchy, try the cosmic expansion model. Here, scholarly articles on the subject


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cosmic+expansion+model&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=YurcUI_iNYid0QXxq4GAAg&ved=0CDEQgQMwAA
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:41am On Dec 28, 2012
Kay 17:

And Hubble proposed an explosion and coined the name big ban.g??
Lol. And hawkings proposed an expansion on hubble's theory?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:44am On Dec 28, 2012
wiegraf:

You want me to knowingly become ignorant? Wetin u dey smoke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

You've been calling hubble the originator for a while despite naming lemaitre and freidman earlier....*smh*



Expanding in regards to earth and EACH OTHER. Uniform expansion != explosion, which would have a centre....


This is pathetic bros. If you're for a name the scientific community has been trying to sell, to no avail as BB is quite catchy, try the cosmic expansion model. Here, scholarly articles on the subject


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cosmic+expansion+model&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=YurcUI_iNYid0QXxq4GAAg&ved=0CDEQgQMwAA

I think we are done with google. The same google you got all your links from, I got mine. I think it's time we think since google is confused. Can we?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 8:15am On Dec 28, 2012
Reyginus: I think we are done with google. The same google you got all your links from, I got mine. I think it's time we think since google is confused. Can we?

This "think" you like to think you are capable of doing, I've done quite a few times already. I've explained in my own words over and over and over again, but you seem to have missed that.

No we can't. I can't understand why you're suggesting ignorance, it borders on being silly. If all my arguments were built around google searches then you'd have grounds to complain, but that is clearly not so.

You no dey tire sef. This is over more or else, and has been for some time
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:41am On Dec 28, 2012
wiegraf:

This "think" you like to think you are capable of doing, I've done quite a few times already. I've explained in my own words over and over and over again, but you seem to have missed that.

No we can't. I can't understand why you're suggesting ignorance, it borders on being silly. If all my arguments were built around google searches then you'd have grounds to complain, but that is clearly not so.

You no dey tire sef. This is over more or else, and has been for some time
You can't?! Wonders.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 10:06am On Dec 28, 2012
Reyginus: You can't?! Wonders.

No, I won't

But I already have before anyways
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 10:42am On Dec 28, 2012
Reyginus: Lol. And hawkings proposed an expansion on hubble's theory?

I didn't say Hawkings proposed it, but that he is one of the strongest proponets of the theory. Isn't he in one of the most knowledgeable positions to talk about the theory?

Where did you get your explosion idea from?? Hubble??
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:20pm On Dec 28, 2012
wiegraf:

No, I won't

But I already have before anyways
Lol. Take and rest and look for where to trap me down.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:23pm On Dec 28, 2012
Kay 17:

I didn't say Hawkings proposed it, but that he is one of the strongest proponets of the theory. Isn't he in one of the most knowledgeable positions to talk about the theory?

Where did you get your explosion idea from?? Hubble??
lol. More fun. He is, but that does not make his place in the theory golden. Where did get your expansion from? Hawkings?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 8:58pm On Dec 28, 2012
That makes him very much an expert. Besides he isn't the only proponet to emphasize on the expansion.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 9:06pm On Dec 28, 2012
Kay 17: That makes him very much an expert. Besides he isn't the only proponet to emphasize on the expansion.
I don't care what the proponents propose. I only care about what the theory says it is.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 10:14pm On Dec 28, 2012

(0) (1) (2) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

The Serra Leonean Girl Who Met Ghaddafi In Hell / When Did God Create Hell? / The Council That Created Jesus - By Former Pastor, Ray Hagins

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 531
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.