₦airaland Forum

DeSepiero:
Do you still want more proof that religion makes someone dumb?

Point of correction Bro, religion cannot make someone dumb. If you are born with a very high IQ being religious can't make you dumb.
Or can you explain to me, how religion can reduce someone's intelligence quotient?

I believe you know that people are born with different talents, capabilities and interests. Simply because some people are more into religion and almost not interested in any other thing doesn't mean they are dumb.

Those people in the field of science making research/discoveries and technological inventions that we all use today were born with such potentials in them.

(those are the people you believe are using their brains for the development of humanity and you want everyone to be like them, but it is not possible because we have different interests, talents and Capabilities as i have stated earlier and everyone is contributing his/her own quota for the benefit of the society )

So there are people who are just not interested in that area and it's not because of religious reasons.

hopefulLandlord:
It feels great to have pulled the wool off someone's eyes through this medium

I hereby hope the below people also have that wool pulled from their eyes

Winner01 , Richirich713, naijadeyhia scholar8200 , malvisguy212 , Muafrika2, Dejideji1 , truthman2012, Image123 , InesQor, Joshthefirst MrPresident1, gatiano sukkot, OLAADEGBU , vooks, UyiIredia , Jeromejnr, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, Tellemall, Ishilove, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Dejideji1, Farmerforlife, 4evergod2, udysweet, Edelweiss44, KingEbukaNaija


We need to free everyone from those tales written by deluded people who had too much to drink

You are wrong Bro, we are not baby Christians. we have had enough evidences and personal experiences to continue to believe in God.
There is nothing you guys can say or do to make us embrace your Atheism of folly.

I only feel for the baby Christians and guests visiting this section and that is one of the reasons why we still engage you guys on arguments in order not to influence such minds.

Wait a minute, i thought you said you are done with this section? You are not a man of your words and you are grossly unstable.
I don't expect anybody to take you/any of your comments serious again on this section.

I can see you are a feeble fellow, you couldn't keep-up in an argument with promise, you threw in the towel when the basis of the argument was yet to be set and you still have the guts to say you want to free others from some tales.

You should be ashamed of your self for displaying such degree of cowardice.

I repeat again, there is nothing you guys can say or do that will make us fall into your state of unbelief. Our faith/believe in God is unshakeable

hopefulLandlord:
True brother but I don't want to anymore

I'm done arguing against the existence of what I term imaginary, the thread isn't dead bro

You're free to engage him




LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

YOU'VE JUST WITNESSED THE LAST POST BY HOPEFULLANDLORD ON RELIGION SECTION

ITS BEEN FUN ALL THE WAY


SPECIAL THANKS TO FELLOW ATHEISTS

ALSO TO THE THEISTS

IM GONNA MISS OUR ARGUMENTS BUT ILL BE WITH YOU ALL ONLY AS OBSERVER

IF YOU PAY ENOUGH ATTENTION, YOU MIGHT SEE MY MONICKER HERE VIEWING YOUR THREADS


THAT'S ALL FOLKS!!!!!!!










HALAMADRID!


Y NADA MAS!!!!

Johnydon22, ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, Weah96 , AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonofLucifer, Frank317, muskets , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , cloudgoddess , ifenes , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer, dalaman, menehsheh, donnffd, Urahara, HardMirror, ogundeleT

[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=48505024][/quote]* modified pls refresh the page

You can see he is observing here......... see picture below.

You can pick on any of his questions and attempt it.

AgentOfAllah:
What's wrong with you?

I usually don't establish my arguments on logical fallacies (for instance, appeal to authority), so who I am challenging is irrelevant to the idea under scrutiny. It just so happens that YOU presented the argument as something YOU agree with, so it is eminently natural that I should address YOU, as the proponent of the argument on this forum.

I normally prefer not to brag about my academic achievements/titles because I prefer my arguments to be challenged on the basis of their contents and quality, not on how authoritative my achievements make me sound. Since you asked, however, I have a PhD, and in one of the fundamental sciences too!

For someone so quick and keen to challenge the academic credentials of others, you are astoundingly ignorant of citation methodologies. Ever tried removing the log in your eyes? Learn from DeepSight; the guy you've been gleefully quoting with reckless abandon.

I've read it, and I stand by what I wrote. You should never invoke "intelligent design" as the elixir of unanswered questions. No amount of intellectual gymnastics will make a lazy explanation like "intelligent design" scientifically tenable. It's the same as the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Need I remind you that you mentioned me. Mentioning people on one's thread is typically considered an invitation to contribute to the topic in question. I responded under the assumption that you were seeking my contribution, an action which I now regret in retrospect. Please refrain from mentioning me again if your preferred method of making arguments is bullying with insolent remarks, thank you!

Lol, actually, you didn't answer any of the posers. I commend your sincerity on questions 1 & 2 admitting you do not know.
However, your response to question 3 as sexual dimorphism does not address the question at all. It's almost irrelevant to the poser.

Sexual dimorphism according to wiki is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs.

The definition alone already asserts that both sexes are already existing. A further reading on the topic doesn't address the poser at all.

You didn't even attempt any of deepsight's questions. And who told you he is ignoring me? And mind you, he is a man in his forties as i was made to understand.
I only mentioned him so as to serve as an observer because in the thread he created, no atheist was able to address his posers.

That was way back in 2013, i noticed most of the Atheists we have now were not on the thread so i decided to quote him and invite the current Atheists.

I caught him viewing this thread when I created it, but nobody has addressed his posers so far that's the reason why he has not posted any comment.

Hun, you have a PhD, so it's likely you are a lecturer and must be very busy and you still have time for arguments on Nairaland.?
I think you should be more occupied with your job and family rather than arguing on trivia matters here sir.

Remember this is an anonymous forum and don't expect anyone to take what you have said serious. Anybody can claim to be anything here.

And hope you know that this is not the first time i will be engaging you.?

AgentOfAllah:
Be careful about making sensational unscientific claims. Asexual reproduction does not offer the kind of genetic diversity that sexual reproduction does. As such, sexual reproduction is actually more advantageous in species that are threatened by genetic diseases/viruses. Read HERE on worms that started favouring sexual reproduction over asexualism due to radiation in Chernobyl.

Read on sexual dimorphism HERE. You may be surprised by how much science has actually uncovered so far. Many questions still exist of course...but that's why science exists. It literally thrives on questions. That a questioned has not been answered does not mean it'll never be answered. Allow me to caution you against using unanswered questions as proof of your intelligent creator. That's a slippery place you don't want to be in, whereby, as was succinctly put By Niel DeGrasse Tyson, your creator becomes "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on".

Again, be careful here!

You deserve some sticks for this thrash you just spewd!

Why do you like concluding haphazardly? Who is making unscientific claims? Are you challenging me or Dr. Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson?

Do you even have a master's degree yet in your area of study before you start challenging those seasoned PhD holders?

I gave the abstract of the book both of them wrote and you are telling me to be careful as if i conjured the whole thing.

Please check the link i gave to the full article.
You read only the abstract and made a catastrophic conclusion.

Please go and read the full article before spamming my thread with thrash.

[quote author=tingFanG post=48452778][/quote]*modified, Please refresh

Seun:
Deepsight, how many evolution textbooks have you read? Do you really think evolutionary biologists haven't asked themselves these questions?

Here is an extract for you.

NB. he is not addressing you here, but addressing those on his thread back then in 2013

DeepSight:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Bell, Graham, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 19, 1982.
[2] Bell, Ref. 1, p. 54.
[3] Ridley, Mark, The Cooperative Gene, The Free Press, New York, pp. 108,111, 2001.
[4] Schecter, Julie, How Did Sex Come About?, Bioscience, 34:680, December 1984.
[5] Crow, J.F., The Importance of Recombination, The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas, ed. Michod and Levin, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 35, 1988. /
[6] Crow, Ref. 5. /
[7] Eldredgen Niles and Joel. Cracraft, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology, Columbia Universiy Press, New York, p.102, 1980. /
[8] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[9] Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998. /
[10] Crow, Ref. 5, p. 60. /
[11] Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine, Evolution, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p. 391, 1977. /
[12] Williams, George C., Sex and Evolution: in the Monographs in Population Biology series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975. /
[13] Zimmer, Carl, Parasite Rex, The Free Press, New York, p. 163, 2000. /
[14] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen Viking, London, p. 254, 1993. /
[15] Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson, On Behalf of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 18. /
[16] Zimmer, Carl, Ref. 10, p. 163. /
[17] Cartwright, John, Evolution and Human Behavior, Macmillan, London, p. 96, 2000. /
[18] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, p. 87, 1977. /
[19] Van Valen, Leigh, A New Evolutionary Law, Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30, 1973. /
[20] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 97. /
[21] Bernstein, H., F.A. Hopf, and R.E. Michod, The Evolution of Sex: DNA Repair Hypothesis, The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, ed. C. Rasa and E. Voland, Chapman and Hall, London, p. 4, 1989. /
[22] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[23] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen, Viking, London, 1993. /
[24] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[25] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[26] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[27] Maddox, John, Ref. 6, p. 252. /
[28] Maddox, Ref. 6, p. 253. /
[29] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 109. /
[30] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[31] Zimmer, Carl, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 230, 231, 2001. /
[32] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, pp. 108-109. /
[33] Ward, Peter, Future Evolution, Henry Holt, New York, p. 153, 2001. /
[34] Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York, p. 98, 2001. /
[35] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[36] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[37] Crow, J.F., The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386, 1997. /
[38] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[39] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, New York, p. 176, 2000. /
[40] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Ref. 15, pp. 88,103,107. /
[41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. /
[42] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 103. /
[43] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 104. /
[44] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 291, 1997. /
[45] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Ref. 41, p. 293. /
[46] Ackerman, Jennifer, Chance in the House of Fate, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 48-49, 2001. /
[47] Ackerman, Jennifer, Ref. 43, p. 115. /
[48] Thomas, Lewis, The Medusa and the Snail, Viking, New York, pp. 155-157, 1979. /
[49] Hoffman, Banesh, Albert Einstein, New American Library, p. 73. /

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Discussed in the paper are various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to, with a link I posted for them, asking them to go through these theories and point out answers to my posers therein.

With the above, it is obvious who is ignorantly grandstanding and making puerile assumptions.
It was a challenge which nobody took up.

Nuff said!

Seun:
That's question 2. The link I gave you answers question 1. You should check the references if you need more details.

Questions 1 and 2 are interlinked. if question
1 is answered correctly, there won't be a problem with question two.

In practical terms, Abiogenesis simply means "Life originating by chance" through the occurrence of some random events leading to the coming together of non-living matter to produce life.

It's pretty much the same answer i enclosed in bracket for the first question. (so you didn't say anything new)

If Abiogenesis is true. (i.e chance) why has it not been replicated in the lab?

Seun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

This link is the same with the second one you gave earlier, which doesn't address the poser. Please check the link again.

Seun:
Having struck down your false premise, the simple answer is that they haven't figured it out yet. Why bother when living cells are so cheap?

I don't know what you mean by false premise here, are you trying to dispute the known fact that it's life that begets life?

Oh, they haven't figured it out yet? Alright let's continue hoping then. Even though it's quite evident that the posers strongly point @ a purposeful design.

Weah96:
You said ALL life MUST come from a PREEXISTING life.

I disagreed. There are entities with life who didn't require a living progenitor.

Your god, for example. Yes it's fictional, but the concept is that living beings can always exist, transcending the contraints of time.



There is an entire species of eternal beings, or is it just one eternal being?

Please don't derail the thread, it's too early. This your comment has nothing to do with the op.

Weah96:
Not true. There is this one subgroup of living things which doesn't come from a prexisting life.

They are called eternal living things. They even designed eternity itself before occupying it.

Lol, what are you saying?

Seun:
Deepsight, how many evolution textbook have you read? Do you really think evolutionary biologists haven't asked themselves these questions?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Scientists don't claim to know ALL the building blocks of life. That's just wrong. Science never makes such delusional claims, but religions do. Do you really think science will never figure out how to create life, though? Many things being done routinely today used to be impossible.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Those links didn't answer the question at all.
The details in the first link is full of assumptions

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life occurring from non-living matter, such as simple organic matter.
It still has to do with the question i asked, why is it that scientists have not been able to replicate the process in the lab? So far, they have not been able to create life from non-living matter.

What we know is that it's only life that begets life so far, they have only been successful @cloning which still requires a pre-existing life (a living cell)


The second link didn't account for the origin of the sexes or how they evolved independently. It only addressed the need/advantage of sexual
reproduction. Which doesn't answer the question

donnffd:
The periodic table is an arrangement of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations and recurring chemical properties. Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number. The standard form of the table consists of a grid of elements, with rows called periods and columns called groups.

The history of the periodic table reflects over a century of growth in the understanding of chemical properties. The most important event in its history occurred in 1869, when the table was published by Dmitri Mendeleev.

What does this have to do with what you asked, you might ask, well look at it this way, In 1869 when mendeleev created the table, there were lots of elements missing, but because of what he understood from the ones he had found, he could accurately and confidently predict the properties of the missing elements.

After years and improvement in technology, many of those elements were discovered or synthesized and all of them were just as were predicted.

Now Evolution is not as similar as the periodic table, but it shows some gaps in our knowledge, we dont know everything and thats why we have science and why people are working on it day and night to answer the questions, but when you deem a theory wrong because it cant yet answer some strange questions, Everything would be wrong because you certainly wont get anything right.

You didn't attempt any of the questions, anyway it's understandable, because seasoned professors and PhD holders in the field of biology, microbiology, neurobiology, and anatomy are still sweating over those posers.

Anyway, continue hoping and refuse to look into other directions for answers, even though those posers glaringly point to a purposeful design.

Warning, the following exposition contains some biological terms that may sound vulgar

Evolutionary Theories On Gender And Sexual Reproduction

Abstract

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and
inefficient sexual reproduction.

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator?

Some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today, Do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

(Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D)


I see this as one of the flaws in the evolution theory. Now to some intriguing questions

1. How did the first life forms evolve? (I know you will say by chance)

2. Why is it that it’s life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.
Scientists claim to know all the building blocks of life but why have they not been able to create life in the lab if it happened by chance as they believe.?

3. For the issue of the sexes, how did male and female species evolve independently?

DeepSight:
The reason I think it is a glaring sore thumb, and the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena: and that is the real reason that evolutionists struggle in such wild confusion to force these phenomena under the trappings of evolutionary theory even when the principles of evolution have no bearing on them!

For your deep thinking please:

1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

Questions 5 to 12 are very similar to what I had in mind before I stumbled on his post. All those posers strongly point to a purposeful design rather than chance through occurrence of some random events.

Nobody(the “evolutiondidit” guys) could answer those twelve questions in the thread he created, here : https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

Let’s see if we will get answers to them today.


Further reading: https://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.php

Cc: DeepSight, Johnydon22, ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, Weah96 , AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonofLucifer, Frank317, muskets , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , cloudgoddess , ifenes , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer, dalaman, hopefulLandlord, menehsheh, donnffd, Urahara, HardMirror, ogundeleT



KingEbukasBlog, winner01, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Farmerforlife, muafrika2, 4evergod2, udysweet

winner01:
Anything could serve as proof.

[b]I have an atheist friend who discarded God simply because she wanted her sexual freedom[/b]I could give you many other examples. Its never about logic.

If God was really a work of fiction, then ultimately nothing would matter.
But this things matter to you and this means you still seriously feel the weight of something you claim to have discarded. That is enough proof that there are things that matter no matter how much we try to discard them.

Things matter!. This could be the proof that simeone else needs.

What does it matter to you if nothing matters

You can keep telling us that nothing really matters. But even those words matter.

@the boldened, it's one of those things that is fueling the practice of Atheism, but I'm quite surprise that it is coming from a lady.

Atheists want freedom, they want to live an unrestrained lifestyle devoid of rules.(especially religious rules) I have interacted with quite a number of them and it's evident.

There was even a particular guy (this one is on this forum), that got mad at me and started using all sorts of abusive words to qualify God when I advised him on living a cautious life style and believe in God. (the details on his profile points to his unrestrained lifestyle)

He said i should leave him alone to enjoy his life that he can't believe or serve our God that won't let him enjoy his life to the fullest, he said we are sadists

The guy is very aggressive, the most aggressive Atheist i have encountered on NL.
He is very quick to use abusive words and unleash his anger on anyone that is not in support of his views.

I don't want to mention his moniker in other to avoid another clash, but I believe you will know him. Our chat is in one of the threads i created. He is no-longer active in the religion section like before..

He is not the only one, that is how most of them are. Their problem is not just that they are not convinced about the existence of God, their main problem is that they can't live with the rules imposed by religion. Hence they resort to Atheism..

I VOTE

IAMKINGZLEE


CC NLJEGA

barackodam:
Good morning sir/ma

It's time to vote.

The voting thread is opened.

You have at one time or the other given me your word on voting for my candidate.

Here's the link to vote, and how to vote.


On this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/3271417/mr-nairaland-2016-grand-finale#48237379


Just type

"I VOTE IAMKINGZLEE CC NLJEGA


that's all.

You can copy the bolded also.

Please notify me when you've voted, so I don't have to disturb your mention later in the evening.

Thanks in advance



Dejideji1
Infinitikoncepr
Rick9
Blessedgurl
Suspect33

Ok

Rahma Haruna was born with a rare condition meaning she has no limbs She spends most of her life in plastic bowl carried around by her family, But despite her disability her parents say she is a bright and happy girl Like any other teenager, she is a bright, happy girl who one day dreams of one day opening her own shop.

Rahma Haruna has no limbs and suffers constant pain, as she lives most of her life in a plastic bowl.
The 19-year-old, from Kano, Nigeria, was born a healthy baby but when she turned six months old her growth came to a sudden shape and she stopped hitting key development milestones.

Rahma Haruna, 19years, due to a mystery condition she was limbs and now spends her life living in a plastic bowl.

Fadi which is her mother said: 'From six months when she learnt how to sit that was when it began. She didn't learn how to crawl.
'She started with a fever and that was it. Then stomach pains. Then her body parts like hands and legs. She cannot use any if the ache strikes.'

http://9jaspot.com/news/234/A-Lady-Born-Without-Limbs-Is-Carried-In-a-Bowl

Barackmeringo:
Lol, it wasn't this thread.

A thread in either of literature or politics, or even celebrities, can't remember which.

That's where I picked it from

Alright, i can see its a campaign thread, actually i have never voted for anyone before mainly due to lack of interest.

But I'm really impressed by this approach and I can assure you of my vote.

Barackmeringo:
At "viewing this thread" sir

Do I have your vote?

Really? I wasn't viewing this thread until I saw your mention and decided to check, and I don't think i have engaged you before in a chat.

That's why I'm curious and considering the vast number of monikers you have been mentioning, spanning over 1500 pages

Barackmeringo:
Bro dejideji1, pls reply

Hello

*pls how did you get all this random monikers? Just curious*

I made a comment recently about the violent/dangerous nature of women nowadays and I received a lot of attack and criticism from fellow women. .

Now, this is one of those things, this is pure evil and wickedness. Just look at how she murdered her own kids gruesomely

Imagine what she will do to her husband if they should have an argument/misunderstanding, how much more what she will do to a total stranger.

women of nowadays are hostile, violent and dangerous. So don't be surprise when you see them perpetrating acts like this or even worse.

*although I still respect older women alot but not the ill mannered and evil minded ladies we have nowadays*

Lol, the type of ban that awaits you ehn............. You know that type of long ban that can force someone to deactivate.............. .

Anyway, i can see you posted it under the jokes section, you may be spared..

seunmsg:
So sad The punishment is not commensurate with the crime. Capital punishment should be outlawed worldwide. No matter the tribal colouring, this is not good for Nigeria.

You are right Bro, it's too harsh. I don't also support capital punishment unless in cases of murder because who ever has the guts to take away the life of his fellow man is a beast and does not deserve to live.

In most countries, Sentences for drug distribution and trafficking normally range from 3-5 years to life in prison.

EazyMoh:
Don't mind them, they are just not ready. No tangible arrangements have been made for the program yet.
They have not recruited the trainers nor arranged the facilities for the training.
Initially applicants are supposed to take a test a week within registration to determine if they are qualified. But then the site went haywire even the iD code has problem subsequently, as it started appearing in 32 alphanumeric characters.
Am afraid this program may turn out to be a disaster, because it'd be difficult to screen these millions of applicants within the next one month not to talk of how to conduct selection test.

I was a bit worried when I saw the ID code with 32 alphanumeric characters and was wondering if it should be like that.

But since the code should be kept private and personal, we don't know how the previous ones looked like.

So what is going to happen now? Because it seems that is the format everyone is receiving now.