₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,883,305 members, 3,809,476 topics. Date: Saturday, 23 September 2017 at 10:07 AM

A Little Question To The Atheist - Religion (1) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Little Question To The Atheist (667 Views)

Conclusion : Atheism Is So Illogical , The Atheist Delusion / Why Are The Atheist Not Seeing This? / Is God Deliberately Ignoring The Atheist??? (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 12:54pm On Sep 14
CAPSLOCKED:


2+2 = 4

IT'S POINTLESS SCHOOLING WITH 2+2=5 BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE SAYS SO.

loooooool, thanks for the laughter pills.

I didn't quote a "Bible says so" on the thread, do me a favour someday, undo the caplock, I might consider becoming an athiest that day, but wait, athiest does not appear in the Bible, I have second thought thou. grin
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 12:57pm On Sep 14
kevoh:

Just to clarify and not allow miseducation of people on basic biology, it's the sperm that fertilizes the ovum released by the ovaries. The ovaries are like ovum ( egg) producing machines. The semen is the fluid that contains millions of sperms ( spermatozoa). An ovary fertilizing male semen as stated by the OP is illogical.

my bad,

COURTESY OF: LACRAM LAPOUR

1 Like

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by johnydon22(m): 3:01pm On Sep 14
Hier:
Do you consider the fact that the female possess the perfect ovaries to fertilize the male's s*men an accident?

Note, the man evolve as a man, the woman evolve as a woman. The two live independent, so if they evolve, each unit (male and female) evolve without influencing the other gender mode of evolution.


I believe it was designed by someone, that someone is who I term God.

If you disagree, prove otherwise

cc chemystery

People look at results of slows causalities and term them accidental in that way connoting sudden causality or at least using a tone that insufficiently represents the effect in question.

Johannes Kepler a brilliant astronomer was observing the surface of the moon with his telescope, he could see moon craters which are perfect circles on the surface of the moon, he was moved with excitement and he concluded.

"The moon craters are depressions rather than mounds, Such perfect geometrical formations as such accurate circles cannot be an accidental effect of uncharted nature rather is a trade mark of intelligence"

In this conclusion for the cause of moon craters kepler arrived at a closure that Moon craters must have being made by intelligent being on the moon, it cannot be natural, it is too a geometrical perfection to be natural.

Now we have realised that Kepler is wrong, Moon craters are perfect geometrical depressions correct but they are not results of intelligence but rather chaotic natural agents.

A rock of great speed colliding with the surface of the moon would create a local explosion perfectly symmetrical in every direction thus birthing perfect circles on the moon.

So inability to deduct natural process only betrays the persons inability, it does not in any way limit the said process to be outside the confines of natural process, inability to comprehend the natural process behind sexual reproduction does not in anyway just like Kepler mean this is not utterly natural it means you are unable to comprehend this process.

First natural impression is not necessarily correct most times are quite very naive, you may look at sexual process and fail to grasp the natural means this was achieved but that only betrays the darkness of your mind.

Natural process mostly are never accidental as i like to put them, possible effects should not come as a surprise.

It is a consistent development and interloping of unceasing causalities with time birthing complex systems and effects that you witness today, it did not happen over night (As accidental in the basic sense connotes) it's a painstaking natural process that consistently spanned through very long duration of time.

Sexual process most likely evolved from asexual means, dividing into daughter cells by a single cell was the first means of reproduction by single cells on earth and this process still can be found in many organism. '
The very process of sexual reproduction i like to say is not accidental, it is a possible biological result in the abundance of natural causes and effects abound, an effect of millions of years of consistent evolution in cellular reproduction.

In the course of cellular evolution, two different cells fusing to form one organism is not unheard off (this in fact is the very point of origin of sexual reproduction)

Examples: Mitochondria has shown to operate from different gene codes from the rest of the cells therefore is consistent with the idea that mitochondria was a free living organism before being incorporated into the cell.

Cells are basically complex, multi-cellular beings are even more complex system, evolution of single cell organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms and the effects of multicellular organisms are as a result of the intricate functional system of cells working as one entity therefore the effects drastically would be more intricate, different and far more efficient.

Sexual reproduction is not an accident, it's a natural process that consistently arose from billions and millions of years of cellular evolution.

6 Likes 4 Shares

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Nobody: 3:16pm On Sep 14
Hier:


still researching?

That's too risky if peradventure science is lying and I know they are

Everything about science makes logical sense except reproduction, get to know that

Science is not lying; I doubt you even know what science means.

Science is simply saying we don't know all the details for now
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by fireprince14(m): 12:05am On Sep 15
johnydon22:


People look at results of slows causalities and term them accidental in that way connoting sudden causality or at least using a tone that insufficiently represents the effect in question.

Johannes Kepler a brilliant astronomer was observing the surface of the moon with his telescope, he could see moon craters which are perfect circles on the surface of the moon, he was moved with excitement and he concluded.

"The moon craters are depressions rather than mounds, Such perfect geometrical formations as such accurate circles cannot be an accidental effect of uncharted nature rather is a trade mark of intelligence"

In this conclusion for the cause of moon craters kepler arrived at a closure that Moon craters must have being made by intelligent being on the moon, it cannot be natural, it is too a geometrical perfection to be natural.

Now we have realised that Kepler is wrong, Moon craters are perfect geometrical depressions correct but they are not results of intelligence but rather chaotic natural agents.

A rock of great speed colliding with the surface of the moon would create a local explosion perfectly symmetrical in every direction thus birthing perfect circles on the moon.

So inability to deduct natural process only betrays the persons inability, it does not in any way limit the said process to be outside the confines of natural process, inability to comprehend the natural process behind sexual reproduction does not in anyway just like Kepler mean this is not utterly natural it means you are unable to comprehend this process.

First natural impression is not necessarily correct most times are quite very naive, you may look at sexual process and fail to grasp the natural means this was achieved but that only betrays the darkness of your mind.

Natural process mostly are never accidental as i like to put them, possible effects should not come as a surprise.

It is a consistent development and interloping of unceasing causalities with time birthing complex systems and effects that you witness today, it did not happen over night (As accidental in the basic sense connotes) it's a painstaking natural process that consistently spanned through very long duration of time.

Sexual process most likely evolved from asexual means, dividing into daughter cells by a single cell was the first means of reproduction by single cells on earth and this process still can be found in many organism. '
The very process of sexual reproduction i like to say is not accidental, it is a possible biological result in the abundance of natural causes and effects abound, an effect of millions of years of consistent evolution in cellular reproduction.

In the course of cellular evolution, two different cells fusing to form one organism is not unheard off (this in fact is the very point of origin of sexual reproduction)

Examples: Mitochondria has shown to operate from different gene codes from the rest of the cells therefore is consistent with the idea that mitochondria was a free living organism before being incorporated into the cell.

Cells are basically complex, multi-cellular beings are even more complex system, evolution of single cell organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms and the effects of multicellular organisms are as a result of the intricate functional system of cells working as one entity therefore the effects drastically would be more intricate, different and far more efficient.

Sexual reproduction is not an accident, it's a natural process that consistently arose from billions and millions of years of cellular evolution.
I don't believe in accidents. Everything is ordained by a Superintelligence (God). Even the Big bang. Scientists have finally admitted the influence of a higher power behind the scenes. It has been discovered that the big bang happened only once and if the inclement conditions had been just a tiny bit off, the universe would not have existed. Considering this and the unique nature of the genetic code led them to conclude that such precision and accuracy could not possibly be a result of coincidence. The odds would be equal to finding a specially marked grain of sand out of all the grains of sand in the world in just one try. There are no accidents, Just plans so immense our minds can't begin to comprehend them.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 3:53am On Sep 15
Samsimple:
op i warned u but u still want to humilliate ur sef...dis is what i mean wen i say u are ignorant

And what is wrong with being ignorant? Ignorance should not be shamed, and no one should feel or be humiliated for exposing their ignorance. There's not a single soul that isn't ignorant about almost everything.

1 Like

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 4:40am On Sep 15
Hier:
Do you consider the fact that the female possess the perfect ovaries to fertilize the male's s*men an accident?
Have you established any distinction between ovaries that are "perfect" and ones that are "just adequate"?

Note, the man evolve as a man, the woman evolve as a woman. The two live independent
The emboldened claim is demonstrably false. Your question, itself, implies as much. Both genders are dependent on each other for reproduction.

so if they evolve, each unit (male and female) evolve without influencing the other gender mode of evolution.
Your premise is incorrect, so too is your conclusion. Your progeny are bound to carry half of your biological traits and half of your mating partner's, so if you choose mama Christina for a particular biological trait, say massive babylons, you have invariably influenced the gender traits of Christina and her granddaughters. Now, imagine there are some traits that are universally advantageous in men, like long dongles, perhaps for more efficient reproduction (proximity to women's ovaries and all), then, at some point, most of the future men would invariably be born with such a trait, then it could be said that the ovaries of women have selectively bred men with dangling dongles. So you see, both genders influence each others mode of evolution.

I believe it was designed by someone, that someone is who I term God.
Having shown your conclusion to be based on an inaccurate premise, I hope you are willing to reevaluate this belief.

If you disagree, prove otherwise
The onus of this challenge is now on you.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Samsimple(m): 6:12am On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:


And what is wrong with being ignorant? Ignorance should not be shamed, and no one should feel or be humiliated for exposing their ignorance. There's not a single soul that isn't ignorant about almost everything.
#fact..but mr op level of ignorance is out of this world
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 7:05am On Sep 15
Samsimple:

#fact..but mr op level of ignorance is out of this world
You say fact, but you're still shaming his ignorance. If we compare what we know to what we don't, I frankly doubt any of us is significantly less ignorant than the OP. So knowing a little more about a niche area of knowledge shouldn't be licence to shame people

4 Likes 2 Shares

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 7:15am On Sep 15
onyenze123:


Science is not lying; I doubt you even know what science means.

Science is simply saying we don't know all the details for now

Science is simply, what I can explain, (without considering the fact something or someone who could have influenced) using what I can relate it.


In my past life, I have been able to relate with the fact with personal convictions about the existence of God , so I would be deceiving myself, because I won't look for answers when I'm convinced I know the answer.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Samsimple(m): 7:21am On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:

You say fact, but you're still shaming his ignorance. If we compare what we know to what we don't, I frankly doubt any of us is significantly less ignorant than the OP. So knowing a little more about a niche area of knowledge shouldn't be licence to shame people
op claim to know more than everybody thats why he just disgraced himself...end of story
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 7:25am On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:
Have you established any distinction between ovaries that are "perfect" and ones that are "just adequate"?



The onus of this challenge is now on you.

I be right back
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 7:26am On Sep 15
Samsimple:

op claim to know more than everybody thats why he just disgraced himself...end of story
I must have missed his claim then.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 7:28am On Sep 15
johnydon22:


People look at results of slows causalities ou w firthem accidental in that way connoting sudden causality or at least using a tone that insufficiently represents the effect in question.

Natural process mostly are never accidental as i like to put them, possible
Sexual reproduction is not an accident, it's a natural process that consistently arose from billions and millions of years of cellular evolution.

I be right back, am in an open environment, would reply you after reading your comment. Thanks
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Samsimple(m): 7:28am On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:
I must have missed his claim then.
yeah
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Nobody: 8:03am On Sep 15
Hier:


Science is simply, what I can explain, (without considering the fact something or someone who could have influenced) using what I can relate it.


In my past life, I have been able to relate with the fact with personal convictions about the existence of God , so I would be deceiving myself, because I won't look for answers when I'm convinced I know the answer.


...

personal convictions

Exactly what I have been saying. It is subject not objective; It is personal.

The truth transcends all religions. I too have the personal conviction that God is the infinite source energy and eternal consciousness. it is personal, subjective .. That's my point.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 12:36pm On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:
I must have missed his claim then.
lol, do you believe what he's saying
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 12:51pm On Sep 15
Hier:


lol, do you believe what he's saying
Like I said, I didn't find a place you made such a claim, so I have no reason to believe him. Did you make such a claim?

1 Like

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 1:34pm On Sep 15
johnydon22:


In the course of cellular evolution, two different cells fusing to form one organism is not unheard off (this in fact is the very point of origin of sexual reproduction)

Examples: Mitochondria has shown to operate from different gene codes from the rest of the cells therefore is consistent with the idea that mitochondria was a free living organism before being incorporated into the cell.

Cells are basically complex, multi-cellular beings are even more complex system, evolution of single cell organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms and the effects of multicellular organisms are as a result of the intricate functional system of cells working as one entity therefore the effects drastically would be more intricate, different and far more efficient.

Sexual reproduction is not an accident, it's a natural process that consistently arose from billions and millions of years of cellular evolution.

Thanks for the write-up

Wait, help me to understand, these cells are they to eventually become one organism or there was a cell that would eventually become a specific organism

As in, is it general cell to specific cells, as in, one cell after many formation of daughter cells became all creatures

Or it was specific to specific, as in, each cells as a result of big bang resulted in a cell which would evolve to become a particular cell. Eg, 61000000 cells from big bang, finally becoming the exact numbers of organism. Let's start with that
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 1:40pm On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:

Like I said, I didn't find a place you made such a claim, so I have no reason to believe him.



I never did. He might be inferring that, in the sense that he noticed I was refutting all the comments even until Se*n
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by johnydon22(m): 1:53pm On Sep 15
Hier:


Thanks for the write-up

Wait, help me to understand, these cells are they to eventually become one organism or there was a cell that would eventually become a specific organism

DNA code.

ultimately variations in organisms are determined by variations in DNA codes in the cells. A given Cell (particular organism) going through series of mutation (DNA code rewriting) will eventually on the long line (through reproduction, passing of traits to offsprings) become a distinct organism from the original


As in, is it general cell to specific cells, as in, one cell after many formation of daughter cells became all creatures

Above


Or it was specific to specific, as in, each cells as a result of big bang resulted in a cell which would evolve to become a particular cell. Eg, 61000000 cells from big bang, finally becoming the exact numbers of organism. Let's start with that

likewise cells varying in DNA codes due to mutation

1 Like

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 2:08pm On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:
Have you established any distinction between ovaries that are "perfect" and ones that are "just adequate"?



In context, perfect means, that accurately fit or complement the process of reproduction



The emboldened claim is demonstrably false. Your question, itself, implies as much. Both genders are dependent on each other for reproduction.

okay, what I meant is, considering that the male and female might have existed somehow in the past, as evolution was still ongoing. Is it then possible that the separately and alreadily existing male or female develop a separate sexual organ, of course, they might be coming together, but there is a separate form of the male and female reproductive organ, and not only that, s*men and ov*m come into the scene sounds hasty or uncalled for. Why should the male develop a pen*$ while a lady went another way having a vul*@
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Hier(m): 2:24pm On Sep 15
johnydon22:


DNA code.

ultimately variations in organisms are determined by variations in DNA codes in the cells. A given Cell (particular organism) going through series of mutation (DNA code rewriting) will eventually on the long line (through reproduction, passing of traits to offsprings) become a distinct organism from the original



Above



likewise cells varying in DNA codes due to mutation

Hmmmm, DNA codes from a simple free floating cell in the atmosphere, not fair I will say
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by johnydon22(m): 3:02pm On Sep 15
Hier:


Hmmmm, DNA codes from a simple free floating cell in the atmosphere, not fair I will say

So do you now want to discuss the origin of life, species and no longer sexual reproduction?
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by peacesamuel94(m): 3:04pm On Sep 15
[quote author=johnydon22 post=60453998]

People look at results of slows causalities and term them accidental in that way connoting sudden causality or at least using a tone that insufficiently represents the effect in question.

Johannes Kepler a brilliant astronomer was observing the surface of the moon with his telescope, he could see moon craters which are perfect circles on the surface of the moon, he was moved with excitement and he concluded.

"The moon craters are depressions rather than mounds, Such perfect geometrical formations as such accurate circles cannot be an accidental effect of uncharted nature rather is a trade mark of intelligence"

In this conclusion for the cause of moon craters kepler arrived at a closure that Moon craters must have being made by intelligent being on the moon, it cannot be natural, it is too a geometrical perfection to be natural.

Now we have realised that Kepler is wrong, Moon craters are perfect geometrical depressions correct but they are not results of intelligence but rather chaotic natural agents.

A rock of great speed colliding with the surface of the moon would create a local explosion perfectly symmetrical in every direction thus birthing perfect circles on the moon.

So inability to deduct natural process only betrays the persons inability, it does not in any way limit the said process to be outside the confines of natural process, inability to comprehend the natural process behind sexual reproduction does not in anyway just like Kepler mean this is not utterly natural it means you are unable to comprehend this process.



For the fact that Johannes Kepler's submission on what actually caused moon craters, was discredited and proven to be wrong does not in any way serve as a justifiable reason to subject every other phenomenon that exists on earth or in the cosmos, to be explained only as products of natural processes, as that would be an irrational generalization, however you are At liberty to explain or prove Why you think every thing must exist in the confines of natural processes.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by budaatum: 6:05pm On Sep 15
Hier:


Science is simply, what I can explain, (without considering the fact something or someone who could have influenced) using what I can relate it.


In my past life, I have been able to relate with the fact with personal convictions about the existence of God , so I would be deceiving myself, because I won't look for answers when I'm convinced I know the answer.
That my good friend is the definition of (personal) belief and is definitely not science.

"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 6:47pm On Sep 15
Hier:




In context, perfect means, that accurately fit or complement the process of reproduction
Well, I do think the process of reproduction is anything but perfect. During copulation, a human male ejects anything from 200 million to 500 million sperm cells, all of which die, but 1. So the male Instruments is less than 10-7% efficient. Even humans have designed machines that are more efficient than this, so how can a powerful creator be less competent than we are? I haven't counted how many egg cells a woman sheds in her life time. Again, too much inefficiency. Doesn't seem to me like something that was planned out. So is this part of your definition of perfect?

okay, what I meant is, considering that the male and female might have existed somehow in the past, as evolution was still ongoing. Is it then possible that the separately and alreadily existing male or female develop a separate sexual organ, of course, they might be coming together, but there is a separate form of the male and female reproductive organ, and not only that, s*men and ov*m come into the scene sounds hasty or uncalled for. Why should the male develop a pen*$ while a lady went another way having a vul*@

Well, this whole argument is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that gender has always been a fixed thing. The facts are this:

(1) The vast majority of species reproduce asexually
(2) There are many species that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, like some worms and fish
(3) There are some species that do not have fixed gender, like the clown fish

What does this tell us? At the very least, it tells us that there is no clear line that defines gender, however straight forward it appears. As such, you have no reason to believe that gender had always been specieated.

3 Likes 2 Shares

Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by DoctorAlien(m): 8:26pm On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:

Well, I do think the process of reproduction is anything but perfect. During copulation, a human male ejects anything from 200 million to 500 million sperm cells, all of which die, but 1. So the male Instruments is less than 10-7% efficient. Even humans have designed machines that are more efficient than this, so how can a powerful creator be less competent than we are?

This argument of "efficiency" is hogwash. That 500 million sperm cells try to fertilize 1 egg cell removes nothing from the fact that the reproductive system of man was created by an intelligent GOD. If anything, 500 million sperm cells are released with each ejaculation to ensure fertilization, in line with GOD's command "be fruitful and multiply".

If you want to calculate efficiency, do so using complexity and not number. In this case, take 500 million x the complexity of 1 sperm cell as the input, and 1 x the complexity of a human being as the output.

edited.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by AgentOfAllah: 9:40pm On Sep 15
DoctorAlien:


This argument of "efficiency" is hogwash. That 500 million sperm cells try to fertilize 1 egg cell removes nothing from the fact that the reproductive system of man was created by an intelligent GOD. If anything, 500 million sperm cells are released with each ejaculation to ensure fertilization, in line with GOD's command "be fruitful and multiply".
It isn't hogwash, I'm afraid. Your argument would make sense if it wasn't god that designed the whole process. I'm pretty sure a master designer should be able to make reproduction efficient enough that 1 sperm cell easily fertilises an egg cell without having to waste 499,999,999 cells.

If you want to calculate efficiency, do so using complexity and not number. In this case, take 500 million x the complexity of 1 sperm cell as the input, and the 1 x the complexity of a human being as the output.

edited.
Sorry, but that's an incredibly absurd way to frame the efficiency and I'll tell you why: Every single one of those sperm cells has the potential to become an equally complex human if it manages to fertilize an egg, so computing the complexity of the post-fertilisation product is an epic exercise in redundancy.

Efficiency is defined as output/input, in this case, the output is the fertilised egg(s) that later become human, so the true efficiency, E, is given by:

E = number of successfully fertilised eggs/number of ejected sperms. The upper limit for this value is ~10-7%, supposing we ignore all the other inefficiencies, like copulation during menstrual cycles, or wasted sperm during masturbations or other non-coi.tus fetishes that cause ejaculations, or even defective sperms manufactured by dysfunctional testes.

Bottom line is this: The human reproductive system is so inefficient that we eject 500,000,000 sperm cells to compete for 1 egg. If this was designed, it is the most underwhelming piece of engineering ever conceived. Such a designer, especially if marketed as omnipotent and omniscient, deserves not praise, but ridicule!
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by Billyonaire: 10:03pm On Sep 15
God is spirit energy.

We are Robots, operated by Spirit Energy.

Robot plus Spirit Energy is GOD. It is not a Being, it is Conscious Energy that you can not decode using the limited 5 senses on your Earth body, which was designed to make you escape from wahala on Earth.

Search no further, enjoy your short stay on Gaia.

There is no Heaven or Hell, except the one you create, in your mind. You want to know more about God ? Then learn more about yourself, when you know what you are, you will automatically know God.

It boots up awake every morning, and tunes us out at night.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by GoodMuyis(m): 10:09pm On Sep 15
chemystery:

Wow, thanks for this. I learnt something new today. I will still read further. Unfortunately, you will be surprised how some theist will come and exhibit their ignorance and delusion on this very comment. Just watch!

So you are an empty barrel before, ignorant with poor comment one would thought you out there making use of google.
Re: A Little Question To The Atheist by DoctorAlien(m): 11:04pm On Sep 15
AgentOfAllah:
I'm pretty sure a master designer should be able to make reproduction efficient enough that 1 sperm cell easily fertilises an egg cell...
That is merely what you see as designed, which isn't true. One can also claim that design should produce a baby boy and a baby girl with each childbirth. Merely opinions.

Every single one of those sperm cells has the potential to become an equally complex human if it manages to fertilize an egg
The potential of each sperm cell to fertilize the egg does not bear in calculating the efficiency of the system.

Your definition of the true efficiency, E, as "the number of successfully fertilized eggs/number of ejected sperms" is a funny play of words. Okay, let's do it like this:

successfully fertilized egg = human being = ~37 trillion cells.

Efficiency, E = (37 000 000 000 000/500 000 000) x 100%.

There you have your efficiency.

(0) (1) (2) (Reply)

Is The Qur'an The Word Of God? / The Joy Of The Lord / Check It Out? "heaven On The Move"

(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 - 2017 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 250
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.