₦airaland Forum

timbros:
Comparing Andreas Christensen with Kurt Zouma, John Terry and Gary Cahill this season...

I say bring the lad back! Dude have not made a single defensive error in Bundesliga this season!

http://www.squawka.com/news/andreas-christensen-the-solution-to-chelseas-defensive-problems/594485

You think Christensen woulda fared any better here this term?

It's been a terrible season for us, not even Baresi nor Thuram would have helped our course.

mzvyne:
Whats d difference between ladies carrying condoms and guys carrying condoms?

Ladies who carry condoms around are mainly commercial sex workers, that should answer your question.

The premier League today confirmed that they are rebranding from the 2016-17 season. With phrases like ''new visual identity' and 'bold and vibrant'.

Modern day move that was really unnecessary and largely pointless IMHO.

ronald4lif:
Everything is wrong with a woman carrying condoms. What's she doing with them?

Searching for clients.

Ronald Keoman with better tools will be a good choice for us. The man knows his footie.

bqlekan:
Agentofallah, ronald4lyf, griffon, so sorry for the unreplied mentions, busy schedule and a bit indisposed, will review all very soon..

You're not alone, it's been a crazy week for me too.

AgentOfAllah:
The BBT proposes no answer for this question, nor does science as a whole. So it is sufficient to say there is yet no scientific answer.

So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does!

Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the big bang suddenly happened without cause : it's all done by magic! ( I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)

All of a sudden, the idea of a creator who seeded the big bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It's more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

AgentOfAllah:
Please highlight these many other theories and contradictions, let's scrutinise them.

Are you kidding me? How different am I from you? How about the fact that I'm willing to present a plausible, logically consistent physical explanation that can be tested and falsified? Or the fact that I am not dogmatic about my position, and I will change it when a more compelling proposition comes (and it will!)? Or the fact that I don't invoke imperceptible, unfalsifiable and formless ideas to explain away things which I don't know. Please refrain from making nonsensical comparisons, it'll not help your course.

No, they do so from an educated position. The arrogance is in dismissing the plethora of evidence as trivial because they don't conform to your distorted versions of reality. I understand that you wish to attribute the origins of water on earth to some miracle performing entity. The way I see it, it is your proposition that is running into problems here, because you then have to explain why god also put water on many uninhabitable celestial bodies like Pluto, comets in Kuiper belt, Saturn's moon, asteroids...and the list goes on. The only reason you wish to see science as religion is because it makes it easier for you to dismiss the facts it presents, like you do, other religions besides yours.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so, while you're free to adopt whatever assumption makes you comfortable, advertising them without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific scrutiny will only pass them off as the desperate fantasies of a wishful thinker. It is true that many scientists are faithful people. It is also true that many scientists try to pass fantasies off as science, but sooner or later, such works are discovered and corrected because the body of science is a humongous agnostic self-sanitiser.


Please highlight the many other theories you were referring to, and especially how they contradict the celestial rocks theory. Take note of the meaning of 'contradiction' while you do that.

Good read:

www.blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2014/12/12/rosetta-mission-fuels-argument-about-origin-of-earths-water/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10120102

www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/meteoritescomets-and-asteroids/meteorites-most-likely-source-of-earths-water/

CFCman:
Slightly off-topic, but I think European footie wages are getting ridiculous. Why does kicking a round object for, on average, 70 minutes, deserve a £200,000/week wage?

In as much as this inflation is fuelling a false economy, you can't help but accept the fact that these athletes are part of the essence of earning revenue for one of the biggest sports in the world.

Question 2: Where did life ORIGINATE?

This is for all proponents of the Big Bang theory. And please folks I need a concise consistent explanation this time around not throwing around some technical-sounding words around this lovely thread

AgentOfAllah:
What do you mean by "analysis have been supported by little samples"? Have you learned anything about absorption spectra of matter? Okay, let's start from the scratch. It makes probabilistic sense that water should be one of the universe's most abundant compound, judging by the abundance of its constituent elements. Let this be our hypothesis. The question then is, how do we test this hypothesis? This can be done simply by measuring the wavelength spectrum of the star-light passing through/nearby the atmosphere of any planet/comet. Due to their extremely high densities, stars are considered to be black bodies, which makes them perfect emitters of energy. In other words, stars emit light (electromagnetic waves) at all wavelengths, from ultra-gamma rays to ULFs. This means when you measure the EM spectrum of a star, you'll see all wavelengths. This property is very useful because all matter, including you, absorbs light at very well defined wavelengths. This is a direct consequence of their elemental composition. As such, when you measure the light of a star passing through the atmosphere of a celestial body like a planet, there will be some missing wavelengths because these have been absorbed by the matter around that planet. Each element, molecule, compound has a signature absorption spectra. The missing light from the star is compared to the database of absorption spectra which we have on record. From this, we can tell what elements are abundant in the atmosphere of that celestial body. This is how we are able to test the hypothesis that water is a universally abundant molecule, and consistently, this hypothesis has proven true. Another method, the favoured one for objects closer to home, like within our solar system, is to use powerful spacecrafts. For example, the abundance of water in Titan, Saturn's moon, was discovered by NASA's Cassini which was launched in 1997 and is presently orbiting Saturn. Also, the Hubble space telescope discovered water on Europa, Jupiter's moon. Another space craft, phoenix, recently collected samples of water on Mars. Clearly, water is not unique to earth, and its presence in other celestial bodies strongly suggests its universal abundance. It also suggests that water got to these places in the same manner.

Water was not created on earth! Water on earth most likely came to be after the death of the star that birthed earth and our solar system. That process was a very violent one with enough energy to fuse abundant oxygen and hydrogen into their various allotropes and compounds, including water. Water was hidden within and outside the massive rocks that eventually amassed to form the earth. Most rocks contain ionic minerals like salt. In vacuum (like space), these ions start to form weak bonds, attracting each other closer and closer (this experiment was demonstrated by NASA using salt. Look it up on youtube). When the amassing rocks become big enough, gravity takes over, and continues to attract nearby rocks. This process continues until some kind of steady state is reached, where all nearby rocks have been pulled down. Thus, a planet is formed. If you can imagine the amount of rocks that were needed to form earth, then it is definitely conceivable that earth's water came from within these rocks.

When you make reference to scientific disputes, be sure to understand what you're remarking on. There is no doubt that water came from terrestrial rocks that formed the earth. The dispute exists in the type rocks. Yes, the higher ratio of D₂0 in the (only two) Comets from Kuiper's belt suggest water might not have come from comets in that ring. However, there were other asteroids that didn't come from Kuiper's belt that have been tested, and they have similar D₂0:H₂0 ratio as earth's water.

Here lies the problem! Now, supposing it is granted that we don't know the source of water on earth, I fail to understand how this automatically translates to "God did it". This is just a lazy invocation of god-of-the-gaps explanation. It is boring and lacks explanatory power!

Mate I asserted that there has been a hell lot of contradictions in the theories presented by science about the origin of water on earth and I still stand by that assertion. You're only proving me right by the submission of this your 'rocky theory', a theory I believe disagrees wholly with many other scientific theories.

You accuse the 'God did it" team of lacking explanatory power yet the submissions you and your team have been dropping hugely lacks consistency. So how different are you from us?

When scientists talk about the origin of water on Earth, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of scientism requires no proof, only conjectures. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of scientism.

This is not unusual in religion. For example, I assume God created water and I don't need to "prove" it. Its existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong ; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject yet follows the exact same pattern.

Let's move on from here 'cos I have other questions that needs answering.

I'm at work, I hope to submit my rebuttal once I am back home.

ronald4lif:
Lol. Didn't see the mention until now. Hehe.

I think study has shown protoplanetary nebula probably had a lot of water in it. There's plenty of water in interstellar space too. And loads of the chunks floating around in the protoplanetary nebula appears like comets. So comets did deposit a substantial amount of water to the planet.

Some of the earth water came from rocky meteorite too. But on a smaller scale as compared to comets I must add.

But most essentially all the earth's water was here from the formation of the planet. When the earth was very hot and still accreting, all of the surface water evaporated away. But there was still a huge amount trapped in the interior.

After a crust began to form and the surface was cooling, volcanoes were plentiful and large amounts of water were spewed up with the magma. Till date, volcanoes still do that. When the crust was cool enough for liquid water to exist there, it rained and pools formed. Over time and with many more volcanic eruptions, we ended up with oceans.

Less also not forget that water is hydrogen and oxygen, two very common element in the universe.

I'm yet to get the final word. Ronald you and many other scientists out there are yet to deliver with all sincerity and certainty where water came from. The analysis have been supported with limited samples, the many theories have been contradicting. From the Hydrogen and oxygen claims to Comets and Asteroids claims. You lot have been clutching at straws

Come to think of it the formation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the subsequent formation of water are two different things. That's because even when hydrogen and oxygen molecules mix, they still need a spark of energy to form water. The process is a violent one, and that certainly can't be a safe way to create water on Earth.

On the other hand, if the claim that comets is the source of the earth’s ocean water, then they too must contain just the right ratio of heavy to regular water, but that seems not to be the case.

Nwanne is it safe to say the "God did it" team are leading by one nil?

tohpahz:
Lolz. bedroom kwa. Ua nuh even halfway dia yet . U can start by buying mi prado 2016..

Hehe.

Aren't you a challenge?

JT has got one more year of footie in him, I believe I've said that earlier here.

It's a shame to see him leave, he shoulda retired here.

I've got a question for all the proponents of the big bang theory.

Griffon:
Question: No proposed mechanism for the formation of the solar
system from a gradually collapsing nebula can account for the earth's vast quantities of water. Where did the earth's large volumes of water come from?

Ronald4lif shey you dey dodge this question abi?

Let the boys enjoy it I say.

Traore!

coded01:


Cc dmcdad, barackohandso, bykebyke, sebod...

Why are you dragging mates down here over nothing?

You just dey quote and attach monikers anyhow. Are you high or something?

Oscar on some serious historic sh¡t!

If only he can hit a super-hattrick.

daretodiffer:
Are you new? Yourmai.n is way nicer than I am

By religion, I was referring to all religions and their influence on science l

I was talking about the existence of a supreme being

You're welcome to the conversation dear.

Hockeyoilers and Chiedu7, I'll appreciate it if you two will stop derailing the thread.

We have a subject, stick to it if you both wish to be part of the conversation.

daretodiffer:
I believe my own theories. Its scientific facts have been proven over and over again. In fact, it was the reason, science was brought back to life after the Greek era.

Wake me up when you find the truth, the last time I checked these evolution stuffs are still theories and I haven't heard any theory of how matter and a single tiny point came to being. I also don't think there are contradictions in the three Abrahamic religions on big bang theory and evolution

Whether we like it or not, religion is the reason we are here today.

You must be Yourmain 'cos you write like her.

The emboldened can only be true if you can provide substantial evidence.

The Christians' account of creation doesn't agree with what the Muslims have to offer yet they are both religious groups.

There are too many contradictory claims within the religious groups' camp for us to ignore the importance of supporting our claims with evidence.

ronald4lif:
Apologies guys for my lateness, was out of something I had no control of. Reading through... and yes the debate stretches beyond tonight.

No prob brother.

Question: No proposed mechanism for the formation of the solar system from a gradually collapsing nebula can account for the earth's vast quantities of water. Where did the earth's large volumes of water come from?

Ronald4lyf this is for you.

bqlekan:
wipe it off man

where is ronald?

get started

I might not be fully active tonite, i am working on a project with my PC.

I'll try to catch up with y'all. I guess this isn't just about tonite, this thread has come to stay IMO.

bqlekan:
good one there griffon.. i'm debating the origin of life and evolution as a creationist

Let's get started already. I'm sweating

It all started as a little debate. We had our differing views, so we felt it's only wise to create a thread where we can drop our opinions relating to our beliefs, evolution, religion, science, how planet earth/universe came about etc.

No roles, just anything that pit science against God.

Ronald4lyf, Bqlekan, Yourmain and my humble self are the characters who are already playing lead roles in this, we'll present our countenance or discountenance as the case may be citing our reasons.

This thread is created to serve a purpose and that is to enlighten and challenge some thoughts, so let's jettison the idea to initiate an e-war of some sort.

Thank You.

ronald4lif:
I think it's a fair deal and the caption is apt too. Saturday it is then.

bqlekan:
This is getting interesting.. but I won't debate the formation of the earth, due to the fact that we won't be able to show how and why the universe came into existence.. even the Quran only told us how. The earth was formed..

“Do not the Unbelievers see
that the heavens and the earth
were joined together (as one
unit of Creation), before
We clove them asunder?”
[Al-Qu’ran 21:30]

Here is another one on the initial gaseous mass before creation of galaxy

“Moreover, He Comprehended
in His design the sky,
and it had been (as) smoke:
He said to it and to the earth:
‘Come ye together,
willingly or unwillingly.’
They said: ‘We do come (together),
in willing obedience.’”
[Al-Qur’an 41:11]


Again, this fact is a corollary to the ‘Big Bang’ and was not known to anyone before the prophetehood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)1. What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?

The striking similarity between the Qur’anic verse and ‘The Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?

But I won't dwell on that..


I will stick with the emergence of life on earth. How it all started, How the first human came into existence.

Shall we?

Bimffo:
I don't wanna say anything about Modric because I have my reservation, but that Brazilian guy called Oscar gets me vexed a lot with that his stupid nutmegs littered all over the pitch.

Oscar when compared to real midfielders is a disgrace to football. Bloody dude keeps running with the ball like it's a temple run. He fails to authoritatively dominate the middle of the park, he fails to make his presence get felt in the midfield.

He's not a true midfielder, a winger or attacker maybe.