₦airaland Forum

wiegraf:
this is a wonderful post

stolen from the comments section of that article



And of course the king has to stop wearing a cross

Lol abeg o...To call my comment a copy of reader x's is to diminish the masterpiece that their comment is! Whoever that person is definitely deserves an award!
To be clear though, I didn't even open the link to the article, so I could never have seen the comment.

noblezone:
The whole world is crying and wailing today about the atrocities of ISIS.

They invade peoples lands, force them into a new way of life and if they refuse, they are killed.
Some are sold as slaves.

Finally, they give you a new nation.


Rewind to a century ago, the brutish British slave traders

invaded our lands, forced us into a new way of life
Those who resisted were killed.
Some were sold as slaves.

Finally, they gave us a new nation.

Dear Noblezone, you have highlighted snippets of the atrocities that accompany territorial incursions. The real tragedy though, which you have failed to recognise, is that there is in every surviving ethnic group - including the ones to which you and I belong - a damning indictment of the crimes of our forebearers, and we all carry with us, the shame of the atrocities that accompany the many conquers and colonisations that ensured our very existence as an ethnic group.

This has always been the way culture and civilisation spread throughout time and space. It may be inconvenient for you to hear this, but it is a truism, no less: The only difference between the British and any given African tribe is that the British were the first to develop sophisticated weaponry. War and inter-ethnic squabbles have always been one of the most effective ways humanity advanced a cause. It is only recently; less than a century, that we've started to negotiate our differences through the adoption of universal contracts such as the declaration of human rights, in an attempt to avoid the devastating consequences of war.

If we dear to denounce ISIS.
They we must deny the brutish British and their slavery.

If Luggard and his gang of criminals are honoured, then the head of the ISIS also deserves some honour.
After all, the Islamic terrorists who invaded Northern Nigeria and Subdued her, is still honoured till today.


Those of us who dare to question the status quo are called names.

If the ISIS people succeed, in few years, they will become heroes.

That is the tragedy of humanity.

Gideon Orka attempted a coup and failed, today he is a villian,
Buhari attempted a coup and succeeded, today he is a hero.

Shame on Africans.

The reason the paradox you highlighted in you last two lines exists is because the victor always writes history, so you're apt to observe that the promoters of ISIS' ideas will become heroes should their ideology prevail.

I don't know about you, but I hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime.

OLADD:
Going by the vindictive manner Jonathan's govt is been run down by Buhari, I have no doubt the ex president would be regretting not flouting electoral laws in retaining power in 2015.

So what? who cares if the ex-president is regretting not doing the right thing? The law is above any one man's impotent regrets.

wiegraf:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/21/chess-forbidden-in-islam-rules-saudi-arabia-grand-mufti

A life without pokemon is a life without meaning

I think they just have a problem with the piece called "Bishop", but they're too embarrassed to say it! I propose a name change of that piece to "sheikh" or "mufti" if you prefer that it preserves its dual syllabic form...I'm pretty sure that will keep the mufti's well pleased, and probably encourage them to persuade god to reconsider the haramness of the game.

"Persuade god" you ask?...Well, the truth is that nobody understands god's delicate sensitivities and low self-esteem more than the sheikhs...as the saying goes.."it takes one to know one".

I do not perceive any coherence of purpose in OP's lamentations.

Is OP suggesting that it is excusable to disregard the electoral laws of a country to save one's self from the consequences of contemptible leadership; even at the risk of plunging the country into a state of chaos and instability? If so, might I ask OP to to complete the picture by recommending who the inevitable casualties of such a dangerous proposition should be.

Evidently, the OP's position is not well thought through! The right lesson must surely be that leaders, including the present ones, should start taking their positions of authority more seriously because the odds that they'll be made to face the consequences of incompetence by the system is ever increasing. I advise the OP to adopt this position as the more logical and sensible one.

I will, for USD 100,000

Diamonddris:
Do we still change come 2019? Or do we need Power To The People?

OP is probably too dull to realise that come 2019, APC will be preaching continuity, not change.

Sarassin:
The basic premise of the OP is the presupposition that God, the Divine, Allah or what have you is Omnipotent and Omniscient. I need not justify this. In the religious paradigm which is the OP’s remit there can be no other possibilities to account for human freewill other than its bestowal on humankind by God. If you wish to argue otherwise then that is a debate for another thread.

Supposing the OP's poser is intended as an academic exercise in pedantry, you'd be correct. But I think it isn't, and your response just so happens to be predicated upon a faulty premise. Hence, I think it to be well within reason and context to point such out in this very thread.

You say it is intellectual dishonesty for a non-Omniscient entity to characterize anything else as Omniscient, I find that a staggering and very prosaic thought. The degeneracy that you refer to is the very basis of all religious worship and adoration of an Omnipotent /Omniscient entity. You rightly state that no one can honestly know that an entity is Omniscient, agreed, but it is the legitimate aspiration of every believer that their deity is all-knowing and all-seeing.

The above defense is rather equivocal!
You concede that no one can HONESTLY know that an entity is omniscient, but you consider the factual rewording of the same statement, a staggering, prosaic thought. Can you make your point clearer?
Please note that
1) I don't think it is true that every believer aspires that their deity is all knowing, all seeing as you claim.
2) Even if this were so, this is besides the point! That you wish something to be so does not necessarily mean it is!

Nowhere have I stated that the capacity to know is the same as knowing. What I have written in a previous post is that in the Christian paradigm, God's self-same denial of foreknowledge of certain events would be the only reasonable assertion to make otherwise God then becomes perverse in the face of human misery.

To state, as you did, that god is omniscient, yet denies itself of certain knowledge is to state that god knows everything but chooses not to know some things. This statement is clearly absurd and self-contradictory. In order to reconcile the obvious incongruity you seemed to suggest that omniscience is the capacity to know as per your following quote:

Sarassin:
...it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge...this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

As such, I sought to straighten out the ambiguity you created by asserting that omniscience isn't the capacity to know everything, it IS the knowledge of everything.
Perhaps god is, indeed, perverse in the face of human misery!

You cannot with all certainty state that an entity that denies itself certain foreknowledge ceases to be Omniscient

Yes, you can!

you fall into the same error that you accuse me of

No, I don't!

quite simply you cannot know the will of the Divine.

This has got nothing to do with the will of the divine, it is the violation of logical rules, otherwise known as a fallacy.

Let's make this clearer using logical statements:
For ease, we use symbols to represent our values as follows:
Knowledge of everything = A, not knowledge of everything = ¬A

By definition,
Omniscience ⇒ Knowledge of everything = A
Denying one's self certain foreknowledge ⇒ not knowledge of everything = ¬A

∴ Omniscience is exclusive of denying one's self certain foreknowledge, since (¬A) ⊕ A is always true. You'll find this in any basic logic textbook.

BETATRON:
yeah..like I said earlier the important point is knowledge not the means

Like the teachers fore knowledge doesn't make Him the cause of the student slothful attitude since the students himself knows that his slothful behavior will have cynical and naysaying ramifications on his result and has the choice to sit up and prepare hard for his exam but choose after numerous admonishing to trudge the path of decadence

So also God's fore knowledge of the creature does not mean He actually destined him to trudge that path

The difference between your hypothetical teacher and god is as follows:
The teacher does not actually know with 100% certainty that the slothful student will fail, unless the teacher is determined to fail that student irrespective of the outcome of the student's exam. All the teacher has done, is to make predictions based on the phenomenological observation that slothful students almost always fail. Of course, this isn't always true! Slothful students can pass because they have the kind of natural brilliance that can save them from the agonies of studying (I know this from experience ), and the teacher's prediction may well have been wrong.
In the case of god, god created this slothful student with all of their temperaments, genes and environment. In fact, god had foreknowledge of where, and how this student would end up before the student's creation, but god went ahead to create the student anyway, without bothering to fix these "flaws". To concede that: i) God created this student and ii) Had foreknowledge of the outcome of this student's life; and then proceed to absolve god from this cosmic rigging is divine fantastical! Akin to proposing that gambling house owners, while having foreknowledge that the house always wins, went in for philanthropy.

In summary, the teacher's foreknowledge isn't real knowledge. It is a prediction that has a probabilistic value that is <1, whereas god's foreknowledge is one of certain probability (=1), and the only way you can ever be 100% certain of future events is if you actively rigged it. If I had a die with all six sides having six dots, I can be 100% certain I'll always throw a six!

Sarassin:
I appreciate your rebuttal. Yes, it is a difficult premise but the proofs of my statement is in the absolute fact that humankind has freewill, therefore it must follow that the Divine denies itself certain foreknowledge,(I have not said infinite knowledge) else freewill could not obtain, this does not detract from omniscience, the capacity to know is always there.

There are several flaws in your proposition, and I'll highlight them as follows:

[1] To be clear, you've claimed that the proof of your argument that god "denies itself foreknowledge" is in the fact that humans have freewill? If so, the logic with which you used to arrive at this conclusion is flawed. It is a classical example of the formal logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Look it up!
Here you presuppose that this so-called divine is already omniscient, whereas you haven't actually given a reason for such a presupposition. This assumption is unjustified since there are several other possibilities that could account for 'human freewill' aside from an omniscient entity. Human freewill may also have derived from evolution or from a creator that isn't at all omniscient, like a group of highly sentient extraterrestrial researchers experimenting on self-perpetuating computers etc. This brings me to my second point:

[2] It is intellectually dishonest for a non-omniscient entity to characterise anything as omniscient. You mentioned that you're not comparing omniscience to infinite knowledge. This may be just as well! Infinite knowledge is a sort of oxymoron. This is besides the point though, omniscience might be a possible state, and to be omniscient is simply to know everything. Now, if you concede that you aren't omniscient, as I believe all humans do, then as far as you are concerned, the difference between an entity that knows all that you (the human) can possibly know, plus more, and an entity that knows everything (omniscient) is a degeneracy that cannot possibly be resolved by you. Hence, you cannot honestly know that any entity is omniscience, even if such an entity claims to be one by demonstrating knowledge beyond your own limited capability.

[3] Final point: The capacity to know can never be the same as knowing, even if the entity with such a capacity acts in such a way as to deliberately deprive itself of knowledge. As an example, supposing Advanced mathematics is the only prerequisite for becoming a theoretical physicist, and you've been well equipped with this skill, we may say you now have the capacity to know theoretical physics. Nevertheless, if you chose instead, to study accounting and economics instead of theoretical physics, you can never be said to know theoretical physics, in spite of having that capacity. Likewise, an omniscient entity that deprives itself of certain foreknowledge can, by definition, not be said to be omniscient anymore.

Olufonade:
This man used al-Qur'an paper to smoke cigarettes in calabar and see the end result

You're a despicable person to find any humour in this, even if true. Exposes the blood thirst of you and your god!

4hys:
were is Nigeria going? a friend shared this on his fb timeline

I hope this is just a bad joke! The alternative would be that you're incredibly foolish to believe you can simply push an airplane to takeoff! The typical takeoff speed of an airplane is 200 Km/h, the fastest human foot speed on record (sans load) is ~44Km/h (Usain Bolt). So how can you claim people pushed a plane to takeoff?

TopeQs:
we all know it's the biblical one........but we deny it because of what the western world tell us, cos we believe most of the things they want us to.


if we evolved from ape man and so on[size=16pt].......what's stopping the apes of this days in turning into human,[/size] [size=20pt]THEY TIRED?[/size]

[img]http://1.bp..com/-bbnUUwaloVU/VFjrKnRqXaI/AAAAAAAAb_k/FFZWA3zWs0g/s1600/wolves.jpg[/img]

*****FACE PALM*****

TopeQs:
we all know it's the biblical one........but we deny it because of what the western world tell us, cos we believe most of the things they want us to.


if we evolved from ape man and so on[size=16pt].......what's stopping the apes of this days in turning into human,[/size] [size=20pt]THEY TIRED[/size]?

[img]http://1.bp..com/-bbnUUwaloVU/VFjrKnRqXaI/AAAAAAAAb_k/FFZWA3zWs0g/s1600/wolves.jpg[/img]

*****FACE PALM*****

Toks2008:
Why nothing in this world can make me miss heaven.
Now lets quickly have a run down of why we must never ever miss heaven and this will be a fascinating one.

OK

1.The 12 Magnificent pearl shaped gates and 12 Gem stone foundations.

What value will this add to your eternal life?

2.Streets of Gold:

How will this add value to your eternal life?

3.Mansions of unequivocal splendor:Yes i can't wait to see my mansion in heaven, a mansion that no money in this world can build and i mean if you put all the money in this world together,the total sum will still not be able to build the least attractive mansion in heaven and no matter how much im able to make on this earth,i will never be able to erect a mansion a quarter of the quality of my mansion in heaven and best still,it will be mine for ever and ever.

Hilarious! What does one person do with such an opulent, tawdry mansion?

You are guaranteed to have a ready mansion for you in paradise just to suite your taste perfectly with exact design and furniture settings you desire and adorned with such rare decors that can only be imagined by you as mortal being.

Some mansions are built under the crystal river for people who love the aquatic environment while some are built on trees for those who love the environment and we even have countless mansions suspended in the sky.

Just imagine where you want your mansion to be and the exact colors, dimensions and any type of furniture you desire and you are guaranteed to have it built for you totally free and you will live there forever and ever.

A life without entropy...boring!

4.Living for eternity:

No thanks!

5.Choice food:

What will it profit you to have your choice food at your choice place, in your choice moment, that surfeiting, it all just becomes tasteless indifference to be taken for granted; and all that for eternity? The things we enjoy the most are things we do not take for granted, that's why in spite of the importance of air to us (probably more valuable than gold and platinum), we hardly derive pleasure from it. We hardly derive pleasure from ready abundance.

6.More exciting place than this world:Many believe that heaven will just be a place where we will be floating in the cloud and singing praise and worship song to GOD forever and ever.

Yes you are right, we will worship GOD forever but the truth is that everything in heaven is designed to sing praise to GOD, the lawns,the water,the garments,the angels,our activities and so much more

Your god is an infantile megalomaniac!

but God has also revealed to many that there will be much more fun in paradise than this world and you will definitely miss out nothing except sex that will no longer even exist in our subconscious meaning we can't miss what we don't think about.

Think of any sporting activity except violent sports andd you are sure to find it there and it may surprise you that game of football is in heaven and well cordinated that injuries are non existent.In heaven,no talent is lost.

You make exceptions and claim there will be more fun, how? It's simple maths. Sex is one way to have fun, so removing it from the list of fun things to do does not increase fun, au contraire, it makes it less, even if it is wiped from your consciousness as you claim. It's like claiming a lobotomised person is having more fun than a fully conscious one. This is, of course, preposterous!

7.Meeting friends and family members you taught you will never see again:Yes you will meet your entire generations from all ages[b] who were able to make it to heaven[/b] and how great it will be to see our genealogy before and after us in physical representation.

Cool, except the person doesn't make it to heaven, then your hope is dashed.

8.Meeting children lost at still birth,through abortion,miscarriages or infant death: This is one fascinating part for those who have lost their child as a result of miscarriage,still birth,even abortions and so on and i believe many people will be surprised to know that every child that has began forming in the womb has a soul and in the advent of Death to the fetus or child even before coming to this world,the child will go to heaven and grow up slowly and this means every mum or dad that has lost an unborn child, be 200% certain that your child will be at the pearl gate to welcome you if you make it to heaven.

What do you mean "grow up slowly"? Will they be age mates with their parents, older, younger? I mean, when you're resurrected, you'll presumably be at the same age you died, so your fetus that went to heaven, chilling and growing slowly will conceivably be so old by the time you make it there. Why would you even be interested in meeting a partial life-form which you never knew?

9.We will see GOD Almighty,Our maker,the maker of heaven,earth and the entire universe: Yes we will see GOD and his name will be written on our foreheads.Revelation 22:4

Not sure what value god's name will add to my forehead. But I will be glad that your cowardly god finally thought it appropriate to come out of hiding.

10.You don't deserve to be in hell: Heavenly kingdom is prepared by GOD for us while Hell was mainly prepared for Satan and his evil angels so Apparently heaven is our original home after we live this world.

Actually, from the various mainstream descriptions of hell, I don't think anybody deserves hell, but your god had to be so malevolent as to create a punishment no one deserves, simply because they refused to pander to its megalomaniacal, self-glorification. On that note, I'd rather be in hell than share space with such wicked a creature. At least, hell has got some entropy!

I know what you are asking...have i been there before to know if all i wrote exists? the truth is that asides from scriptural teachings,there are countless number of people GOD has taken to heaven and back just as it was revealed to John and ther stories have beeen the same.

If GOD made the world which is his foot stool as beautiful as this then imagine how he will make heaven which he dwells.

Yeah, this is the point I proclaim BS on everything you've written above!

WhatOnEarth:
Perhaps we should import that of a 7th century warlord who married a girl of nine year old and ordered people who disagree with his lies to be killed.

I hope not! Doing that will be no less befuddling to me.

Of all the many gods and goddesses from the rich cultural/traditional heritage of the Igbo folk, you decide to have overlooking Imo, a giant statue of an imported god, supposedly of Jewish descent, but looking uncannily European.

Slavery is a mentality!

247frolicboss:
Former military president, Ibrahim Babangida, says “inexperience” rather than “incompetent” was the right word to describe former President Goodluck Jonathan who lost his re-election bid in March.


Speaking with The Interview magazine in the December 2015 edition which is currently on sale, Babangida said Jonathan “is a very pleasant person” and said he believed the former president meant well for the country.

Asked about the perception that Jonathan is a good person but was “incompetent”, Babangida replied: “If you use inexperience, I will buy that.” He refused to disclose whom he really supported between Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, who eventually won the election.

http://www.metronaija.com/2015/12/jonathan-was-inexperienced-not.html

cc: lalasticlala

IBB's just splitting hairs here. Inexperience is an excuse you give when you're about to start a project that is alien to you. Inexperience quickly degenerates into incompetence when you are not able to adapt to the demands of such a project even after a lot of time. 5+ years of inexperience is, without a doubt, incompetence!

emwye:
This is a pretty interesting thread to read up on. Why are you both wasting your time?

Does Alexis really think he can intelligently convince Agentofallah (or anyone for that matter) to believe intelligent design?

Does Agentofallah really think he can convince Alexis and discredit what his existence revolves around?

I answer this with a resounding NO! You guys need to chill for a minute.

In my opinion, Agentofallah makes a hell of an argument in support of Evolution and Science.

Alexis, you should do more research and not resort to name calling when arguing along these lines, its just not an intelligent way to go.

Agentofallah, i dont think it looks good on you when you exchange insults - keep it classy like you've tried too - no doubt you are a scholar and a gentleman.

My views - i believe in evolution because i haven't found scientific reason not to. Religion helps me maintain my sanity at the vanity that is life.

I responded, not because I believed I would convince him of evolution, but because I believed making sound arguments online might prove beneficial to someone that wasn't even party to the discussion when it happened. That you have shown appreciation for my diligence vindicates my position.

Buhari's NEXT travel destination is Abuja!

Am I right? YES.
Will you give me my N1,500? Probably not

Eleniyan15:
[s][/s]
i saw the advert on cnn it cool... i hope it affordable [color=#990000][/color]

Is > US$ 600 affordable?

bongolistik:
The Motorola Droid Turbo 2 is not only the first to feature an unbreakable screen that according to Motorola took them 3 years to develop the 5 layer screen system that is known as shattershield, the device is also the first to feature an external memory capacity smartphone that can take up to 2TB of microSD card.

OP the emboldened is clearly misleading!

Microsoft announced their Lumia 950 and 950 XL on 6th of this month, and both have the capability to be expanded externally to 2TB as well.

Click HERE for more detail.

theDEVILisHERE:
To your questions

Groups that make up Biafra are
Igbanke, Igala, idoma, Igede, Isoko, Isobo (aka urobo), Itshekiri, Izon (aka ijaw), Ibibio/efik and Igbo
(Notice the "I" initial in most of the groups)
This groups are related by blood
They all can trace their ancestory to one particular source
ERI
Apart from similarities in food and other things
One of the ways to easily identify the Biafran groups is
It is customary for women in this groups to wear a 2-piece rapper as part of their traditional dressing

Thanks for your definition. Going forward, I will accept the above as the definition of Biafra for the rest of our dialogue.

This brings me to my second question, which is: Why do you think "One Nigeria" is only for fools? I assume the quoted excerpts from your last response are the answers to that question. A such, I have further questions:

Excerpt 1

For africa and africans to develop
They must destroy this present structure put in by their slave imperial masters
Go back to their original default setting so they can rediscover themselves and start developing properly

While as you rightly observed, the present structure was put in place by colonisers (or imperial masters, if you like), you have not provided any arguments as to why development is predicated on the destruction of the structure. So if you please, you can answer me these:

1) What does it mean to rediscover one's self?
2) What constitutes development according to you?
3) How does this self rediscovery lead to development as you've defined it?

Excerpt 2

The present structure and boudaries where put in by the imperialist for a reason
The reason is to get you under their control

I don't accept this claim. I may be wrong, but I believe we were already under the control of the imperialists before amalgamation (I assume this is what you mean by the "present structure". More accurately, the imperialists put the present structure in place to streamline their governance of the erstwhile independently governed protectorates.

Excerpt 3

Being under their control means you can only develop as much as they want you to
What this means is that
Africans cannot control their destiny
When you cannot control your destiny
You are a slave

I believe the imperialists relinquished control of the geographical expression that constitutes Nigeria in 1960; and to the best of my knowledge, practically all the major tribes played a role; one which was united in purpose, and seemingly effective. So can you explain what exactly you mean by "being under their control"?

Excerpt 4

There's a reason the continent is costantly in conflict and is in a hot mess

(I kind of endedup writing much)

Can you claim that Africa was never in constant conflict before the arrival of the European colonisers? If so, how did kingdoms expand, some spanning several countries according to modern borders.

Don't worry about writing much. I am a patient reader, mostly!

theDEVILisHERE:
One nigeria is only for fools
Cause us only a fool who chooses slavery over freedom

Biafra is the goal
Nothing more nothing less

Mr Devil (I hope you don't find the moniker offensive! theDEVILisHERE is both a mouth full and an inconvenience to type),

I wish to engage you civilly on your claim, that is, "One Nigeria is only for fools"; and the premise upon which that claim is based (i.e. Only a fool would choose slavery over freedom).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I continue, I will briefly introduce myself to assuage any misapprehensions you may have about me.

I have opinions about a lot of things, but none of my opinions is set in stone. I like to think my positions are well though out, but I also recognise that I may be deficient in judgement due to inadequate information, so I always look forward to updating my knowledge, and by extension, my body of opinions to cater to new information. A quick perusal of my previous comments will expose me to be a somewhat reasonable person.

I say all that to assure you that I do not wish to engage in a posturing contest with you, rather I really want to understand where you're coming from and why you hold the opinions that drive your obviously strong convictions with admirable vigour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start with, since, if you choose to respond, we will be talking about Biafra quite a lot, I need you to first of all, define Biafra for me and interested readers. To me (and this is mostly because of my ignorance, but also due to scarcity of material), the concept of Biafra is still very much nebulous.

Ways to define:
To keep this casual without compromising on its informative value,

1) You can help by mentioning the border regions of Biafra. This will give me a clear conception of your idea of Biafra
2) You can provide links to cartographic materials that already exist online, but which you agree with as the definition of Biafra.
3) I don't want to limit you, so if you have a better way than the foregoing, please share

Thanks.

P.S. I do agree that only a fool will choose slavery over freedom, albeit with some qualifications which can be subject of another discussion..I wish to keep this one as coherent as possible.

gbolakpine:
Chief Imam of University of Ilorin, Prof. AbdulGaniyu Oladosu of the Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education, has said the Holy Qur’an is the root of Science and Technology. Oladosu stated this in Ilorin while addressing newsmen.

This is an idiotic claim! Quran is most definitely NOT the root of science and technology. Science and technology predates the Quran, and there is nothing in the Quran that remotely alludes to science and technology, except the claims of scientific miracles contrived from vague verses by desperate apologetics using fantastical literary gymnastics.

Teempakguy:
I believe the word believe here is rather relative.

Thanks for your clarification. That guy is clueless, and has just the right size of ego to deceive himself into believing he actually knows what he's talking about!

Anyway, dark matter is a theoretical explanation for the formation of galaxies. A very strong amount of centrifugal force is needed to keep the stars spinning. In a disc form that the galaxy has.

As I earlier stated, dark matter is a direct consequence of the fact that force is intricately linked with matter. Force of gravity is felt, thus, matter exists. We don't know the nature of the matter, so we call it dark.

Actually, stars are spinning in relative vacuum, so you don't need centrifugal force at all, all you need to sustain their axial rotation is angular momentum from the initial explosion from which the stars emerged. In any explosion, there is bound to be a few particles that are expunged with angular momentum. There are roughly two types of celestial bodies, those that form oblate spheroids like stars, planets, moons, etc. These left an explosion with angular momentum and they're are still spinning today (conserving the law of inertia). The other types are debris like comets and meteors that don't spin around their axes, but nevertheless, continue to move. They only stop when they collide with bigger bodies with large enough gravity to pull them away from their trajectory. Sometimes, we experience this as meteor showers on earth.

Gravity is far too weak a force to provide the centrifugal energy. With the amount of mass available in the galaxy. So, a leading theory is that there is actually enough matter in the universe to propagate gravity. But, that it is unobservable by human instrument.

gravity is not a polar force, so it has no tendency to cause angular momentum on its own. The reason we are orbiting around (not moving straight towards) the sun is because the earth and the sun had an angular momentum against each other from accretion. Thus, there is an equal centrifugal force that pushes us away from the sun, just as gravity pulls us into it. Both forces balance out and keep us in orbit.

Also, I wouldn't refer to Satan as antimatter. They are an entirely different concepts.
Also, I don't think I've ever heard of a dimensionless particle before. How would such then exist?

Anybody that refers to Satan as antimatter is a complete nutcase!

timonski:
Sorry to say, but this is a load of bull. In science we don't BELIEVE. Belief is the hallmark of religion. In science we try to rationally explain any theory, not this. This is why we have so many sects in mainstream science like bigbang theorists, string theorists( like teempakguy and co), relativists, quantum physicists. And we now have religious teachings like:
* timeless, spaceless singularity(God)
* big bang, big bounce(creation)
* big crunch(the apocalypse)
* 0D particles(spirits)
* 1D strings, blackholes, white holes, dark energy, dark matter(angels and demons?)
* Anti-matter(satan)
* Time dilation, space expansion, length contraction, time travel, wormholes( straight outta the comics) etc.

I am not sure what you're driving at, but you seem hopelessly confused by the semantics of the word "belief". Scientists BELIEVE in things that can be proven by empirical evidence. You may be disappointed to know that this use of the word is not equivalent to the blind belief which religion employs.

Who is "we"? You aren't a scientist, you're a confused idiot that makes analogies between purely derived scientific concepts and religious ones. Please refrain from insulting scientists with your inanity! I'm irritated! Positrons are anti-electrons (anti-matter), and they exist in potassium, so if you've ever eaten bananas, chances are that you've eaten a positron at some point in your life. Hence, if you really believe positrons are Satan, then you might as well have eaten Satan by eating bananas! While you're cracking your empty skull on that, look up PET scan!

Listen, if/when you're ready to have a proper scientific discussion, I'll engage you. On the other hand, if you're going to continue on this personal stupidity index exposé, please leave my mention out, thanks!

timonski:
guy wind is simply "Air in motion", and we all know the constituents of air.
You pseudo-scientists observe gravity and you quickly scream DARK MATTER! you say it is an indisputable fact. Then how come dark matter is still a theory?

Although, it is both your right and prerogative to come across as ill-informed, you have called into question, my scientific acumen, which is what has necessitated my response. I'll now have to school you on dark matter.

Your comment betrays a definite lack of understanding of the fundamental forces of nature! There are four of them, namely, the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational force. Efforts of particle and nuclear physicists have helped us unify the weak and strong nuclear forces, as well as the electromagnetic force. Essentially, the nuclear forces decay into electromagnetic force at low energies (<100GeV). This has led physicists to believe that there exists a grand unified theorem that merges all the forces, including gravitational force, at a high enough energy; or, otherwise, the forces are a break in symmetry of a super force, due to drop in available energy. Now we know that quarks (by strong nuclear force) decay into anti-electrons (electromagnetic) and anti-quarks decay into electrons.

Matter is the blanket name for all subatomic particles. What this means is that in the absence of matter, no force can exist. Or, in other words, force is the language with which matter expresses itself. This is without respect to the type of matter. What does this portend for dark matter?

Well, we know there is a vast expanse of space in the universe that exacts enormous gravitational force on massive celestial bodies. As such, the only meaningful verdict is that matter exists in this expanse of space. Why is it called 'dark' then? Because it is in an area of space where light doesn't escape, either because space is expanding faster than light can care to reach these dark bodies, or these bodies have intense gravitational pull that even light can't escape (this is where the talk of black holes come in). Given that gravitational force is extremely weak, and this dark matter exerts a lot of gravitational force on celestial bodies thousand of times bigger than the earth, we can estimate that the universe contains about 25% dark matter.

So, in a nutshell, there is gravitational force, hence, there is matter. Do we know the nature of this matter? No! Thus the apt appellation 'dark'.

Like I said earlier, dark matter is an observation. It is neither an explanation, nor a theory! And no one pretends it explains anything.

Also, you betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is, it seems. And I'd school you on that too, but mneh! Do it yourself!

timonski:
The question is: Thus dark matter even exists? I mean is it a RATIONAL explanation to anything?

Dark matter isn't an explanation, it is an observation, as such your question makes no sense. Asking your question is analogous to asking if wind exists. You may not know the content of the wind, but you feel the pressure it exacts, thus you know it is real. Likewise, we feel the gravitational pull of dark matter, and though we don't know what constitutes dark matter, its existence is, ipso facto, indisputable!

Teempakguy:
okay, yeah. Black holes.

I also have another theory. that we share universes. And gravity is the only force that permeates them all.

Hence, gravity from a star in some other universe affects our own galaxy.

Your suggestion may be valid, but following the principles of Occam's razor, it is superfluous!

Teempakguy:
Cc blakjewelry.

I think dark matter may actually be the product of hawking radiation.

You mean black holes, not Hawking radiation? Hawking radiation is so infinitesimal you cannot possibly detect its gravitational pull. If you meant black holes, then hawking radiation will be a product of dark matter, not the other way around.

Orikinla:
Majority of Nigerian politicians claiming to be Christians are ritual cultists, including those who have posed with the most popular General Overseers of Pentecostal churches and have been seen in fellowship and worship on Sundays and special crusades.

They will kneel down before pastors and bishops, but later return to their rituals of Juju for their political powers. They only use Christianity as camouflage to win the support of majority of Nigerian church goers who are also claiming to be "Christians", but God knows are hypocrites and liars who only praise and worship God with their lips, but their hearts and souls are far from God.
No wonder celebrated pastors and prophets who boast that they see visions could not tell Nigerians the whereabouts of the missing Chibok school girls.
They have become partners in political and religious hypocrisy with the political office holders from the Niger Delta to Lake Chad and from the East to the West.
They can fool the whole world, but they cannot fool God and true believers of God.

[size=18pt]The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
◄ Isaiah 29:13 ►[/size]

So? Last time I checked, Nigeria's constitution allows for freedom of religion.