₦airaland Forum

Please give us scientific explanations for our rationale, subconscious, mental facilities, will power, nerological faculties, morality etc.

I am waiting. Do not duck this one.

I have 3 tickets to watch France vs England at Stade De France on 26th March but I wont be able to make it and none of my friends want it either.

So, if you live in France or are willing to travel, I can send you the tickets.

You will be sitting in the French section, not with the hooligans (English fans) - and the seats are the seats reserved for corporate guys and relatives of players etc - they are the best seats in the house.

Anyway, let me know.

It is completely free, no 419 at all.

I repeat:

Ibime:
I will leave you with this quote from your friend tpaine:

You fail to appreciate that science is NOT "gospel". The likes of Hawkins, Einstein, etc may discover theories about the universe which fit the observed fact. But that does not make their theories invulnerable to challenge. If a new theory comes along that fits the fact better, the old theory is replaced by the better one.

Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats.

GOODBYE!

GOD IS ALIVE!

No more, no less. If you like quantify all your arguments. The fact is that you have a THEORY - and you try to fit in all your scientific arguments into that theory - and the arguments change or are modified all the time. Stephen Hawkins and the rest of them - that is all they do - how can you accept 'Gospel' truth from someone who doesn't even know his own argument and has to modify it all the time?  Was he there when all this stuff was created - or did he just theorise about it? You just accept his word as doctrine. Why, because the scientific community have a lot to gain from promoting the notion of a godless universe. Then you discredit anyone who argues otherwise such as Hugo Ross or whatshisname. So yes, if you say there is no God, hold on to your beliefs - just don't bother us with it. What I know is what I can see - that something has been perfectly created - and it must have a creator. PRAISE THE LORD! 



I will leave you with this quote from your friend tpaine:

You fail to appreciate that science is NOT "gospel". The likes of Hawkins, Einstein, etc may discover theories about the universe which fit the observed fact. But that does not make their theories invulnerable to challenge. If a new theory comes along that fits the fact better, the old theory is replaced by the better one.

Please, we will wait till you guys give us your correct story of how the earth was created. Until then, stop forcing it down our throats. You yourselves are not even sure.

Chacal:
Mourinho's first priority is DON'T CONCEDE.
Once that is established, he gets one or 2 counters or dead-ball situations and then he kills the game.

Well, it always came back to haunt him in the Champions league.

In Jose's first season, it wasn't really like that though - we had Robben and Duff and our football was smooth until they lost form or had injuries or fell out of Jose's good books. We also had Gudjohnsen in midfield who was our most creative midfielder. Jose once called him "The Blond Maradona" - then promptly sold him. Trust Jose!

I expect a 2-0 win for Chelsea. Their defence is porous.

KAG:
It's a load of nonsense. i like also that you plagarised Hugh Ross' rubbish and have tried to pass it off as your own.

No I didn't. You think say i get time to calculate all this nonsense. If you see am sef, you go think say na Naija man calculate that thing?

KAG:
Ross's calculations are false for the most part, deal with the probablity for a planet capable of of supporting life (that other planets and space bodies that can probaby supprt life have been found, doesn't detract him from his nonsense) not the formation of the Earh per se. Further, Ross doesn't take into account figures and scientific findings that would skew his flawed calculations. That's bad statitics.

Who is Hugh ross? I just googled the thing jare. Obviously, you have had this debate many times for you to know his name. Why do you so incessantly pursue this topic. Is it your job? Do you get paid for it?

As for the part in bold, if your coconut head had any Mathematical sense, you will see that he has factored in the probability that there are 1022 life-supporting bodies in the Universe, not just earth. ITK.

KAG:
So,it's not zero? And given the billions and billions of stars in the universe, each possibly with its own set of orbiting planets, surely, all you need is one in trillion and trillions to give rise to intelligent life who believe that the entire universe was made for them. That is not say that Ross' calculations are accurate, but to point out the fallacy in presuming that one in inumerable number of planets contained in a vast universe is equal to zero.

Do you know the difference between dependent and independent probability? You have not even factored in the chonological order of events that need to happen for life on earth to be random. Even if earth is one out of a zillion planets, the time-dependent probabilities would kill your argument dead.


Anyway - let us finish this argument here. You are no Professor of evolution, neither am I. It is just like having two psychologists arguing about nuclear fission. Do not argue what you don't know.

^^ Like you said, it is not the formation that matters, it is how you play it. If you have wingers like Ronaldo and Messi and you allow them to stay forward, then the formation is brilliant. Whichever way, tactics are not as rigid as to put them in brackets. A lot of teams claim to play 4-4-2 but most of them are really playing 4-5-1. Whichever way, it is down to the mentality of the coach and the ability of the players. Formations are not rigid.

Chacal:
@ Ibime,

Dont start anutha debate. . . . . . .

Mourinho uses Drogba as a lone striker because of Mourinho's defensive mentality.
He is the 4-3-3 man that turns 4-5-1 when under pressure from their opponents.
This formation suits Mourinho's boring and negative football. . . . why do u think Abrahamovic feels Chelsea play boring football?

If Mourinho has Nistelrooy, Rooney, Henry and Torres in his team, he would still play his 4-3-3.
Thats the only way Jose can play. . . . If u force him to play the ROMAN way then he gets confused.
Chelsea stumbled when he was asked to play ATTRACTIVE FOOTBALL. . . . Jose couldn't cope and he had so many poor results before he got kicked out.
Teams were coming to the Bridge and scoring freely unlike the 1st 2 seasons when he built a GERMAN TANK of a team with his 4-3-3.

Still - this does not prove your point about Drogba. Even Ivory Coast play him in a 4-3-3. So did Marseille. Nobody can tell me Drogba has skill to partner anybody. He is simply a battering-ram.

By the way, I think 4-3-3 is the best formation - Barcelona, Portugal, Brazil, Chelsea, Arsenal (when they reached CL final), Liverpool, Man Utd (sometimes) all play it. The formation has nothing to do with the 'attractiveness' of the football. It is the instructions that the manager gives that determines how attractive the team are.

No worry, I no dey start debate - but I already know how Somze will react.

KAG:
Absolutely zero? You're not a very good mathematician, are you?

bawomolo:
interesting, i see u being a mathematician makes u a great statistician. can u please show us the calculations that lead u to this probability??

Here is your probability.

Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388

dependency factors estimate ≈ 10-96

longevity requirements estimate ≈ 1014

Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-304

Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion)

SO - TO HOW MANY DECIMAL PLACES WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ROUND UP BEFORE YOU AGREE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO?

Foolishness knows no bounds - anyway, below is how it is calculated if you care to waste your time. I don comot for this discussion because it is utterly pointless.



Parameter Probability that feature will fall in the required range for physical life

local abundance and distribution of dark matter                                                                          0.1

relative abundances of different exotic mass  particles                                                               0.01

decay rates of different exotic mass particles                                                                             0.05

density of quasars                                                                                                                        0.1

density of giant galaxies in the early universe                                                                              0.1

galaxy cluster size                                                                                                                        0.1

galaxy cluster density                                                                                                                   0.1

galaxy cluster location                                                                                                                  0.1

galaxy size                                                                                                                                    0.1

galaxy type                                                                                                                                   0.1

galaxy mass distribution                                                                                                               0.2

size of galactic central bulge                                                                                                         0.2

galaxy location                                                                                                                              0.1

variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate                                                                            0.1

quantity of galactic dust                                                                                                                0.1

giant star density in galaxy                                                                                                           0.1

frequency of gamma ray bursts in galaxy                                                                                     0.05

star location relative to galactic center                                                                                         0.2

star distance from corotation circle of galaxy                                                                               0.005

ratio of inner dark halo mass to stellar mass for galaxy                                                                0.1

star distance from closest spiral arm                                                                                             0.1

z-axis extremes of star’s orbit                                                                                                      0.02

proximity of solar nebula to a normal type I supernova eruption                                                 0.01

timing of solar nebula formation relative to a normal type I supernova eruption                         0.01

proximity of solar nebula to a type II supernova eruption                                                           0.01

timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption                                      0.01

timing of hypernovae eruptions                                                                                                     0.2

number of hypernovae eruptions                                                                                                  0.1

masses of stars that become hypernovae                                                                                    0.1

flux of cosmic ray protons                                                                                                             0.1

variability of cosmic ray proton flux                                                                                               0.1
gas dispersal rate by companion stars, shock waves, and molecular cloud expansion in the Sun’s birthing star cluster 0.1

number of stars in birthing cluster                                                                                               0.01
star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1
variation in star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1
birth date of the star-planetary system 0.01
number of stars in system 0.7
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars 0.01
proximity of close stellar encounters 0.1
masses of close stellar encounters 0.1
density of brown dwarfs 0.1
distance from nearest black hole 0.2
absorption rate of planets and planetismals by parent star 0.1
star age 0.4
star metallicity 0.05
ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron in star-planetary system 0.02
star orbital eccentricity 0.1
star mass 0.001
star luminosity change relative to speciation types & rates 0.00001
star color 0.4
star rotation rate 0.3
rate of change in star rotation rate 0.3
star magnetic field 0.1
star magnetic field variability 0.1
stellar wind strength and variability 0.1
short period variation in parent star diameter 0.1
star’s carbon to oxygen ratio 0.01
star’s space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest 0.05
star’s short term luminosity variability 0.05
star’s long term luminosity variability 0.05
amplitude and duration of star spot cycle 0.1
number & timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds and cloudlets 0.1
galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2
H3+ production 0.1
supernovae rates & locations 0.01
white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01
structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system 0.3
planetary distance from star 0.001
inclination of planetary orbit 0.5
axis tilt of planet 0.3
rate of change of axial tilt 0.01
period and size of axis tilt variation 0.1
planetary rotation period 0.1
rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05
planetary revolution period 0.2
planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3
rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity 0.1
rate of change of planetary inclination 0.5
period and size of eccentricity variation 0.1
period and size of inclination variation 0.1
precession in planet’s rotation 0.3
rate of change in planet’s precession 0.3
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon abundance in solar nebula 0.1
number of moons 0.2
mass and distance of moon 0.01
surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001
tidal force from sun and moon 0.1
magnetic field 0.01
rate of change & character of change in magnetic field 0.1
albedo (planet reflectivity) 0.1
density 0.1
density of interstellar and interplanetary dust particles in vicinity of life-support planet 0.3
reducing strength of planet’s primordial mantle 0.3
thickness of crust 0.01
timing of birth of continent formation 0.1
oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2
rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1
global distribution of continents 0.3
frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages 0.1
frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events 0.1
silicate dust annealing by nebular shocks 0.02
asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1
change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
rate of change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
mass of body colliding with primordial Earth  0.002
timing of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.05
location of body’s collision with primordial Earth 0.05
position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01
major planet eccentricities 0.05
major planet orbital instabilities 0.05
drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.05
number & distribution of planets 0.001
distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances 0.02
orbital separation distances among inner planets 0.01
mass of Neptune 0.1
total mass of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.1
mass distribution of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.2
average rainfall precipitation 0.01
variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation 0.01
atmospheric transparency 0.01
atmospheric pressure 0.01
atmospheric viscosity 0.1
atmospheric electric discharge  rate 0.01
atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01
rates of change in carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere throughout the planet’s history 0.001
rates of change in water vapor levels in atmosphere throughout the planet’s history 0.01
rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere 0.01
oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
nitrogen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere 0.1
chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1
aerosol particle density emitted from forests 0.05
cobalt quantity in crust 0.1
arsenic quantity in crust 0.1
copper quantity in crust 0.1
boron quantity in crust 0.1
cadmium quantity in crust 0.1
calcium quantity in crust 0.4
fluorine quantity in crust 0.1
iodine quantity in crust 0.1
magnesium in crust 0.4
manganese quantity in crust 0.1
nickel quantity in crust 0.1
phosphorus quantity in crust 0.1
potassium quantity in crust 0.4
tin quantity in crust 0.1
zinc quantity in crust 0.1
molybdenum quantity in crust 0.05
vanadium quantity in crust 0.1
chromium quantity in crust 0.1
selenium quantity in crust 0.1
iron quantity in oceans 0.1
tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01
stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01
mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01
water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
poleward heat transport in atmosphere  by mid-latitude storms 0.2
quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01
quantity of sea salt aerosols in troposphere 0.1
soil mineralization 0.1
quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01
quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001
quantity of geobacteraceae 0.01
quantity of aerobic photoheterotrophic bacteria 0.01
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01
quantity & timing of vascular plant introductions 0.001
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals 0.00001
quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens 0.00001
phosphorus and iron absorption by banded iron formations 0.01
quantity of soil sulfur 0.1
ratio of electrically conducting inner core radius to radius of the adjacent turbulent fluid shell 0.2
ratio of core to shell (see above) magnetic diffusivity 0.2
magnetic Reynold’s number of the shell (see above) 0.2
elasticity of iron in the inner core 0.2
electromagnetic Maxwell shear stresses in the inner core 0.2
core precession frequency for planet 0.1
rate of interior heat loss for planet 0.1
quantity of sulfur in the planet’s core 0.1
quantity of silicon in the planet’s core 0.1
quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust 0.01
quantity of high pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs 0.1
hydration rate of subducted minerals 0.1
water absorption capacity of planet’s lower mantle 0.1
tectonic activity 0.05
rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1
volcanic activity 0.1
rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1
location of volcanic eruptions  0.1
continental relief 0.1
viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01
viscosity of lithosphere 0.2
thickness of mid-mantle boundary 0.1
rate of sedimentary loading at crustal subduction zones 0.1
biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01
regularity of cometary infall 0.1
number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02
intensity of primordial cosmic superwinds 0.05
number of smoking quasars 0.05
formation of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.1
orbital stability of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.01
total mass of Oort Cloud objects 0.2
mass distribution of Oort Cloud objects 0.2
air turbulence in troposphere 0.1
quantity of sulfate aerosols in troposphere 0.1
quantity of actinide bioreducing bacteria 0.01
quantity of phytoplankton 0.001
hydrothermal alteration of ancient oceanic basalts 0.01
quantity of iodocarbon-emitting marine organisms 0.01
location of dislocation creep relative to diffusion creep in and near the crust-mantle boundary (determines mantle convection dynamics) 0.1
size of oxygen sinks in the planet’s crust 0.2
size of oxygen sinks in the planet’s mantle 0.2
mantle plume production 0.1
number and mass of planets in system suffering significant drift 0.2
mass of the galaxy’s central black hole 0.3
timing of the growth of the galaxy’s central black hole 0.5
rate of in-spiraling gas into galaxy’s central black hole during life epoch 0.05
distance from nearest giant galaxy 0.5
distance from nearest Seyfert galaxy 0.9
amount of mass loss by star in its youth 0.1
rate of mass loss of star in its youth 0.3
rate of mass loss by star during its middle age 0.3
quantity of magnetars (proto-neutron stars with very strong magnetic fields) produced during galaxy’s history 0.05
variation in coverage of star’s surface by faculae 0.5
ratio of galaxy’s dark halo mass to its baryonic mass 0.2
ratio of galaxy’s dark halo mass to its dark halo core mass 0.2
galaxy cluster formation rate 0.1
proximity of supernovae and hypernovae throughout history of planet and planetary system 0.1
tidal heating from  neighboring galaxies 0.5
tidal heating from dark galactic and galaxy cluster halos 0.5
intensity and duration of galactic winds 0.3
density of dwarf galaxies in vicinity of home galaxy 0.1
amount of photoevaporation during planetary formation from parent star and other nearby stars 0.2
orbital inclinations of companion planets in system 0.1
variation of orbital inclinations of companion planets 0.2
inclinations and eccentricities of nearby terrestrial planets 0.3
in-spiral rate of stars into black holes within parent galaxy 0.7
strength of magnetocentrifugally launched wind of parent star during its protostar era 0.2
degree to which the atmospheric composition of the planet departs from thermodynamic equilibrium 0.01
delivery rate of volatiles to planet from asteroid-comet belts during epoch of planet formation 0.1
amount of outward migration of Neptune 0.1
amount of outward migration of Uranus 0.1
Q-value (rigidity) of planet during its early history 0.2
variation in Q-value of planet during its early history 0.3
injection efficiency of shock wave material from nearby supernovae into collapsing molecular cloud that forms star and planetary system 0.1
number of giant galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number of large galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number of dwarf galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number and sizes of planets and planetesimals consumed by star 0.3
distance of galaxy’s corotation circle from  center of galaxy 0.1
rate of diffusion of heavy elements from galactic center out to the galaxy’s corotation circle 0.2
outward migration of star relative to galactic center 0.3
degree to which exotic matter self interacts 0.01
migration of planet during its formation in the protoplanetary disk 0.1
viscosity gradient in protoplanetary disk 0.1
variations in star’s diameter 0.1
average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters 0.1
frequency of late impacts by large asteroids and comets 0.1
level of supersonic turbulence in the infant universe 0.05
number and sizes of intergalactic hydrogen gas clouds in galaxy’s vicinity 0.1
average longevity of intergalactic hydrogen gas clouds in galaxy’s vicinity 0.2
minimization of chloromethane production by rotting plants and fungi that are exposed to the atmosphere (life’s survival demands very efficient burial mechanisms and relatively low temperatures) , 01
avoidance of apsidal phase locking in the orbits of planets in the planetary system 0.03
number density of the first metal-free stars to form in the universe 0.02
epoch during which the first metal-free stars form in cosmic history 0.1
level of spot production on star’s surface 0.2
variability of spot production on star’s surface 0.2
size of the carbon sink in the deep mantle of the planet 0.05
average circumstellar medium density for white dwarf red giant pairs 0.2
number densities of metal-poor and extremely metal-poor galaxies 0.1
rate of growth of central spheroid for the galaxy 0.05
amount of gas infalling into the central core of the galaxy 0.1
level of cooling of gas infalling into the central core of the galaxy 0.1
ratio of dual water molecules, (H2O)2, to single water molecules, H 2O, in the troposphere 0.03
heavy element abundance in the intracluster medium for the early universe 0.1
quantity of volatiles on and in Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone 0.001
rate of infall of intergalactic gas into emerging and growing galaxies during first five billion years of cosmic history 0.1
pressure of the intra-galaxy-cluster medium 0.1
proximity of solar nebula to a type I supernova whose core underwent significant gravitational collapse before carbon deflagration 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to a type I supernova whose core underwent significant gravitational collapse before carbon deflagrataion 0.01
sizes of largest cosmic structures in the universe 0.01
level of spiral substructure in spiral galaxy 0.2
mass of outer gas giant planet relative to inner gas giant planet 0.05
Kozai oscillation level in planetary system 0.7
triggering of El Nino events by explosive volcanic eruptions 0.1
time window between the peak of kerogen production and the appearance of intelligent life 0.1
time window between the production of cisterns in the planet’s crust that can effectively collect and store petroleum and natural gas and the appearance of intelligent life 0.1
reduction of Kuiper Belt mass during planetary system’s early history 0.1
efficiency of stellar mass loss during final stages of stellar burning 0.3
efficiency of flows of silicate melt, hypersaline hydrothermal fluids, and hydrothermal vapors in the upper crust 0.2
supernova eruption rate when galaxy is young 0.2
range of rotation rates for stars are on the verge of becoming supernovae 0.2
quantity of dust formed in the ejecta of Population III supernovae 0.1
chemical composition of dust ejected by Population III stars 0.3
time in cosmic history when the merging of galaxies peaks 0.2
efficiency of ocean pumps that return nutrients to ocean surfaces 0.1
sulfur and sulfate content of oceans 0.3
density of extragalactic intruder stars in solar neighborhood 0.4
density of dust-exporting stars in solar neighborhood 0.3
average rate of increase in galaxy sizes 0.1
change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history 0.1
proximity of solar nebula to asymptotic giant branch stars 0.05
timing of solar nebula formation relative to its close approach to asymptotic giant branch stars 0.05
orientation of continents relative to prevailing winds 0.3
quantity and proximity of gamma-ray burst events relative to emerging solar nebula 0.01
proximity of superbubbles to planetary system during life epoch of life-support planet 0.03
proximity of strong ultraviolet emitting stars to planetary system during life epoch of life-support planet 0.02
number, mass, and distance from star of gas giant planets in addition to planets of the mass and distance of Jupiter and Saturn 0.01
quantity and proximity of galactic gamma-ray burst events relative to time window for intelligent life 0.1
infall of buckminsterfullerenes from interplanetary and interstellar space upon surface of planet 0.3
quantity of silicic acid in the oceans 0.1
heat flow through the planet’s mantle from radiometric decay in planet’s core 0.002
water absorption by planet’s mantle 0.01
timing of star formation peak for the universe 0.2
timing of star formation peak for the galaxy 0.2

Chacal:
(1.) Drogba can play with a partner. . . . who says he cannot?
Mourinho tried Drogba/Shevchenko combo for a while but Sheva's legs are tired and the combo wasn't really effective.


(2.) Anelka can play off Drogba or vice versa. . . . The 2 strikers will be a thorn in the flesh of any defence because they are quick and strong.

(3.) Kalou shouldn't be a Chelsea player . . .  .He is a waste of space.
Joe Cole, Malouda and SWP can play on the flanks to support the 2 strikers with quality crosses.

(1.) Ok - so name the striker that Drogba has effectively partnered in his career.

(2.) Have you been to Chelsea training ground to see whether Drogba and Anelka are gelling? Why did Mourinho, in all his wisdom refuse to pair Drogba with Crespo or any other striker for that matter - except when he was forced to play Shevchenko?

(3.) Have you been watching Chelsea this season. If you have, you will know that Kalou and Joe Cole are our best wingers this season. Malouda is stinking out the place and Wright-Phillips is just being Wright-Phillips as usual - except for his good run in January.

Mc Omo:
na wao . . .

(1.) see as this guy dey fall Drogba hand because hin no dey form ?

apart from ETOO and a few others, name the other strikers that you would rather have in your team as a 9 ?

(1.) I have never liked Drogba - and his first 2 years at Chelsea - was he out of form then?

(2.) Dem Boku - lemme just throw you some names - Benzema, Eto, Torres, Berbatov, Ibrahimovic, Henry, Anelka, Kanoute, Fabiano, Aguero, Van Nistelrooy, Adebayor, Luca Toni.

I have not even started. i would call some other names - but I don't want to offend you die-hard Drogba fans. I am sure some names I listed would offend you sef.

Chacal:
@ Ibime,

Wait a minute. . . . .

Why can't Chelsea go 4-4-2(playing Anelka and Drogba in the attack).
Kalou, Malouda, Joe Cole and SWP can all play on the flanks.
I think this will benefit DROGNELKA combo than the usual 4-3-3 which takes either of em out of the game.
Is Grant that stupid he cannot see the threat the combo possess?

Name one striker that Drogba has effectively combined with in his whole career? According to a recent report in World Soccer Magazine, Drogba is one of the most difficult strikers in Europe to partner with.

He plays better in the lone forward role, winning headers and flick-ons for onrunning midfielders. Even at Marseille, he had no partner. I have never seen him combine effectively with any striker for Ivory Coast. Infact they play with one striker and two wingers.

Put simply, Drogba does not have the skill, first touch, vision or passing ability to play with a partner.

BTW, playing two strikers will neutralise Kalou and Joe Cole, forcing them to defend too often. You can see that Joe Cole plays in a 4-4-2 for England and it does not suit him. Also, who would play in central midfield? It will leave our midfield too weak.

Chidi, abeg go cut your hair.

dason4life:
Let somebody advice Grant to dump Anelka
where he picked him from, then he can leave
Chelsea for good

Sharrap dia!

Didn't you see that Anelka was involved in all the goals yesterday? The man is an all-rounder, not just a goalscorer. For me, he is a welcome change from Drogba. Didn't you see how the game went flat when Drogba came on yesterday?  Drogba has only had 1 good season in 4 years. Abeg give Anelka time jo.

Abeg make una commot - Adebayor is the best Nigerian player in Europe right now. The man is from Ogun State but Naija Under-17 Selectors bounced him from the trials.

fotodaddy:
@ all Christians answering to this thread
God is not dead and does not need your help to defend himself. God has said before that Sprititual things cannot be understood with a carnal mind. Why then do you think you can get a carnal mind to understabd spiritual things by sound logical arguments. Are you God?? Or is God lying when he said that. Why don't you expend your energies on getting to know him better instead of trying to do the work that he did not ask you to do.

@ those asking questions
What is the real motive for the questions. Do you really want answers or are you just trying to communicate your beliefs. Take care that it doesnt come round and bite you too. You know what goes round comes around.

Thank you my brother. These people are jobless.

tpaine:
You ureally need to educate yourself. Probability is a rigorous tool in science to determine the likelihood of events. You may not know this but almost every activity has a probabilistic component, where absolute certainty does not exist.

I can tell you that the probability that earth was created by random events is ABSOLUTELY ZERO. I am a Mathematician, so please don't preach to me about probability.

tpaine:
Who said there was no "creation". There certainly was a creation event - the question is was this event natural or supernatural. It has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BIG BANG created the universe. Our current understanding does not go beyond the Big Bang. The BB created events that later created the matter you see around you today. The total sum energy of the universe is zero. Given that matter and energy are interchangeable (from E=mc2), the matter in the universe was created out of energy. All the matter we have is equally matched by a net negative matter(energy), thus restoring the zero-equilibrium state of the universe. (Victor Stenger)
.

The Bib Bang theory is absolutely that - A THEORY - based on many many assumptions, at every step. All this E = mc2 you are quoting and all this matter and anti-matter, who do you think you are impressing?

tpaine:
You fail to appreciate that science is NOT "gospel". The likes of Hawkins, Einstein, etc may discover theories about the universe which fit the observed fact. But that does not make their theories invulnerable to challenge. If a new theory comes along that fits the fact better, the old theory is replaced by the better one. Rarely do you see such corrective measures in the religious dogmas which you favour,

EXACTLY!

tpaine:
If everything was created perfect as you claim, how do you account for all the evil and disasters that claim millions of lives yearly. Is that perfection to you. An asteroid strikes the earth and kills millions - was that a perfect creation? There are millions of people today who suffer from AIDS, malaria, cancers etc - was that a perfect creation,

Why are you so angry at God?

tpaine:
According to Gen 1, your inept god did not make the sun until the fourth day. How would one have days and night if there was no sun until the 4th day. The earth is held in its orbit by the gravitational attraction of the sun. What was holding the earth in place before god created the sun. Plants were created before the sun was created, and we know that plants need the sun to photosynthesise. How did the plant survive before the sun was created. This all sounds by mythology to me and any thinking person,

The Bible said "God said let there be light" - it did not say nothing about the sun. You do not know if the earth at the time was covered by some kind of gas like Jupiter and some of the other planets.


Anyway, I don finish. Ne need to waste my time discussing nonsense with you. Maybe you are Professor Emeritus - or just someone with too much time on their hands. Whatever it is, let us just agree to disagree.

tpaine:
The universie about 14 billion years old and extremely extremely extremely vast. Only in our own galaxy, the Milk Way, there are 100 billion stars and more that 100 billion galaxies in the universe. So how significant is the earth is this infinitesimally small speck in the universe? Our earth is so tiny that even in our own galaxy, if the earth were to disappear, it will cause but a tiny ripple in the structure of the galaxy.

Of all the vastness in the universe, how much of this is conducive to human life? How much of the surface of the earth is conducive to life? In view of the fact that life cannot be sustained in the overwhelming majority of the universe, how can it be claimed that this vast universe was created with us in mind. How do you account for all the wasted matter, supernovae, blackhole, pulsar, galactic collisions that would distroy all life in an instant.

yada yada yada -  You cannot use probability to try to explain away the reason for the existence of life on earth. I know the usual argument - yes out of all these billions of planets and yada yada yada, by basic probability, it just so happens that earth is condusive for human and animal life - RUBBISH!

ALL OF IT was created. Have you been to any of those 100 billion planets to check if there is life or not before you bring your stupid argument? I believe there is. Our Holy books only tell us about earth. Abi you want a religious text to be a million pages detailing every step in the creation of life before you believe?

Simple logic tells you that everything is made. You cannot see something which is carefully constructed such as a table or chair and question whether somebody made it or not. How much more the planets in their perfect alignment, with all their moons perfectly made to reflect light from the sun and to order the tides of their seas. With all their seasons. Everything is PERFECTLY made - by a superior and intelligent being - infinitely more intelligent than your Hawkins and Dawkins who you follow so closely - having eyes, yet not being able to see - being intelligent, yet a fool in the most basic of things.

As for the earth, the Bible says "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth - The earth was without form and void and the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the Earth"

The bible does not give a chronological order of things. Nor does it tell you the length of time between the 'beginning' and the creation of man. Nor does it tell you if there if there was a previous project here on earth. Yes, I believe God carries out projects - not only on earth but in other galaxies and solar systems. The Bible does not say that man was created immediately after the earth was. Nor does it specifically state that we were the first life forms on earth. God had other projects here before this current one. And yes - that included Dinosaurs.

I am not here to defend the Bible. Even I notice that there are irregularities in the Bible - just as I know that there are many assumptions in the work of Darwin, Hawkins and Dawkins. Infact, there are so many 'assumptions' in the work of Darwin, Hawkins and Dawkins that they would be thrown out of any science class - except in the area of evolution. And that is what you choose to believe?

Let us deal with lemma's, not assumptions - and the only lemma I know is this - Something is not created from nothing. Creation is proof of a creator.

If you choose to argue about any of the major religions, that is a different matter. But do not be so stupid as to argue that there is no God.

tpaine:
In that case, why has humanity been immersed in ignorance, stupidity, illness, and suffering almost all of humanity when the knowledge to cure all these ills exists in god? If he is so clever and powerful why does he not just fix the world he could not get right in the first place. Ah, I forgot that he enjoys seeing us suffer and die as he gets a great deal of satisfaction from that.

Jesus said there will always be poor.

What is your point? You haven't answered the question. If you say you believe in God but not the Christian God, I would have no wahala with you. However, you have not explained why all these carefully calculated measurements that allow life on the earth exist - can you verify that all these precise forces and measurements are all down to random occurences? Answer the question and stop dillydallying.

Look, the fact is that we were all put here by someone. Creation is proof of a creator just as much as a cake is proof of a baker. Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. Whether or not he is the Christian God or not is irrelevant. Everybody just serves him in the different ways they know how.

Nateevs - one page all to yourself - are you the match commentator? Anyway, that is a good one for our goal difference just incase we end up on the same points as Arsenal. Their goal difference is 35. We are now on 30 with a game in hand. Man Utd are on 43 sha so we have to beat them on points.

And to answer all your questions - do you not think somebody calculated all these physical phenomenom such as the force of gravity, the speed of light, the distance of the earth from the sun, the atomic mass of the sun - do you not think that somebody calculated all these things before he made the earth - surely, you are not too stupid to think that they occur randomly. This is only the physical level, not to mention the subconscious and mental level - face it, God is the greatest scientist.

Chacal:
5 points difference to the league leaders is nuthing.
You still have to play Arsenal. . . . beat Arsenal and its cut to 2 points. . .

We have 2 games in hand (against Deby and Sunderland) - so if we win them and beat Arsenal at the Bridge, we will be AHEAD of them - the only team we are worried about is Man Utd.

@ Somze, why don't you go and marry Mourinho if you love him that much. Abeg get over it. Mourinho is gone because of his argumentative personality. You cannot be fighting Abramovic all the time. Do you see Schuster, Mancini or Ancelotti fighting with their respective owners when their owners start buying players. Mourinho is not the first manager who did not buy his own players. All of them from Capello to Lippi have players bought for them by Mijatovic, Calderon and all the other Technical directors and Presidents. Do you see any of them fighting? They brought in Arnesen to work with Mourinho but Mourinho does not want to work with him. Well, I am sorry - whether or not you are a fan of the Technical director system, you don't see top managers in the World fighting with their technical directors. Ramos has a technical director, Damien Comolli, who was also Arsene Wengers technical director. Because of Mourinho's fractious personaltiy, instead of sitting down with Arnesen and discussing where and how they want to take the team forward, he hated him from day one. How can you say Arnesen is not doing his job when every England youth team has at least 5 or 6 Chelsea players. The fact is that if Arnesen recommended anyone, Mourinho does not even want to listen to him - so you cannot say Arnesen is not doing his job. Mourinho should comot abeg. The reason he was sacked is because of personality differences with Abramovic, not any footballing issue.

Well done to Peter. Finally, a Nigerian has won some major boxing honours. I wonder what happened to Ibeabuchi? He had more skill than Peter. Abi did that rape case catch up with him?

As for Klitschko, Peter has to train really hard and increase his speed if he is to get behind Klitschko's jab. But nothing spoil, Peter can do us proud again.

Please, if your money doesn't make you happy, then send it to me. It WILL make me happy.

Bawomolo, wetin dey worry you? Abeg leave peoplem to practice their religion jo. Be very careful - You may think you are a highly intelligent aetheist as you claim to be - but only a fool says there is no God. If you think we all just magically appeared from some atomic explosion, then you are highly mistaken. Even someone with 2 brain cells can reason that. If you learn the mathematics of creation, the mathematics of gravity and how it is precise to one trillionth of its dimension and various other mathematical and physical forces which have been expressly designed by God, without which the Earth cannot exist, you would not be here spouting such rubbish. Anyway, I no get time to enter this debate with you - but make you just respect yourself for here. That is all.

Either you get paid to research all this bible that you are quoting - otherwise something dey worry you.

With all the medical doctors we have in Naija, look at what these Aboki's are doing.

I believe it was Ahmadu Bello that said: "We have nothing in common with Southerners. Their way of life is completely alien to us. Rather than employ them to do our jobs, we would rather employ foreigners, even if we have to pay them double."

Hausa people will never learn. Despite all the rubbish they have done to our country, they will never learn from history. Its sad.

Please let us leave this Mourinho issue behind. I don't believe Mourinho would have done anything significant this season from watching the first 10 games of the season. I also don't think he was calm and composed as he should be because all the wahala at Chelsea was getting to him. It affected him so much, he ended up at the Wellington hospital recieving treatment for migraines. His mask of confidence had slipped and the players could sense it. Even he knew he wasn't gonna do anything this season because he was the one who challenged Roman to sack him - and Roman obliged. He knew his players were not good enough - a manager is sometimes only as good as his players.

The fact is that Chelsea should stop approaching this MOurinho issue with a pre-2003 mentality. Yes, Mourinho is our greatest manager ever - but we are a MASSIVE club now - we can have any manager we wish to have. The stakes have changed. A poor man does not know how to appreciate wealth because he never had it before. He overvalues it. I think we overvalue Mourinho. We can have all the best managers in the World if we wish, no problem.

Anyway, coming to Roman Abramovich, what is this I am reading on The Sun website that he has made a £25m bid for Diego to replace Lampard. Firstly, Diego is more like £15m cos he flopped at Porto. Secondly, he may be too weak and slow for the Prem. Thirdly, which manager did he consult before making the bid? Does he even know who the manager is going to be before he starts buying these players without knowing whether the new manager will want them or not? A couple of months ago, that is how he went to make bid for Amauri - and he was turned down. He says he wants attacking football but doesn't he know that Amauri is Didier Drogba part 2 ? Abi, is he playing Championship Manager with Chelsea FC? Make e take time o!

Finally, I am hearing that Frank Arnesen is recommending Michael Laudrup to take over at Chelsea this summer. I actually thought about this after the Carling Cup. If we can't have Hiddink, I think Laudrup can do a decent job. I like the way his Getafe team play. He plays 4 attacking midfielders and no defensive midfielder, yet his team is compact, good to watch and barely leak goals. What do you guys think?

nateevs:
Well I don't believe the midfield is ok . . I think we need more creativity in Midfield . . . I am generally not fan of Lamps . .plus he'l be 30 next season. . ballack will be 32 by next season and Essien is not the creative midfield. . I see a case where Lamps Ballack and Maka are replaced . . . Sidwell will normally go . . and so will SWP and Malouda. . Sheva and Pizzarro are not excluded. . and Drogba wants out. .

Thank God say na you talk am - before I am accused of being Anti-Chelsea. As for Essien, Real Madrid are willing to sign him this summer. As per se I expect him to be around 30 years old or more (real age), I would like to see him leave - as for Maka, I see no signs that his powers are declining. He is such an intelligent footballer that I can see him playing at the top level for another 2-3 years if he keeps himself fit. As for Lamps and Ballack, I just wish they could dribble. We are lacking a player that can take people on in central midfield. I am not sure if I would want to let both of them go at the same time sha.

nateevs:
So you see. . I love to see 2 Luca Modrics . . second one being Augusto or Van der vaart. .
The problem is ManU are close to securing Augusto and Van der Vaart make Robben and Van Persie look like Rambo. . .

Modric is a good option. I also think Kuzmanovic and Hamsik from Fiorentina and Napoli are good CM's. Van Der Vaart would require a total change of formation and style so we have to see which manager we get first. Renato Augusto is another good option - I was completely unaware that Man Utd were after him. Trust Carlos Queiroz to scoop up all the Portuguese-speaking players.

nateevs:
Quaresma !!!!! I am still not decided about him. ,

Forget - wait till he moves to another big club, then you will regret it. If you watch him play for Portuguese national team, you will know what I am talking about. Maybe he is not that motivated when he plays for Porto. Van Der Vaart and Van Persie were the same. Their last two years in Holland were rubbish because they lost motivation. Luis Figo has already recommended that Inter Milan buy Quaresma to replace him.

nateevs:
Aguero . . I don't think he'l be more expensive than the what he'l provide in the next few years. . he's just 19 . . if he ever comes through and grows at the pace he is right now . . his buy out clause might be about 70. . 80million in about 3 years even if we buy him for the £20million that Athletico are asking for. . Money well spent if you ask me. . . Also it will open the door for players of his style and Calibre running to Chelsea. . currently we don't have players like him . . . ,

Trust me, Aguero is a lot more expensive that £20m - especially after last weekend.

As for David Bentley, he is on the Joe Cole level - good to great - but not a World beater - You can also put Aiden McGeady in this category. If we buy them, they have to be our third choice. I want two killer wingers - I think Quaresma is the only one on the market right now (possibly Ben Arfa) - Nani and Ribery were the other ones available but we already missed that boat.

I even fancy Ronaldinho at £13m to play in central attacking midfield - I don't know what you think. Yes, he has lost his acceleration but de guy get eye to pass ball.

nateevs:
Luca Modric. . what I heard is his contract can be bought out for £1.3million and will be stupid for Mamic not to accept £10million . . he (Mamic) valued Luca at £20m.

Ehe, thank you - that is what I wanted to say.

nateevs:
That said I will want to see a mssive overhaul of playing staff. . . I know Somze doesn't agree with me on that one. .

Not really massive - defence, goalkeepers and defensive midfield are fine. I just want one skillful central midfielder such as Modric, two new wingers to replace Wright-Phillips and Malouda and one striker to replace Drogba when he leaves.

I have heard they are giving Ivanovic time to adapt to the new culture - my russian friends say he is a very good right-back - and he can cover leftback and centr-back. I hope there is no problem with Ivanovic sha.

nateevs:
I will like to see the arrival Renato Augusto, Sergio Aguero, Dos Santos. . wish the bids we had in for all these players plus Luca come through. .

Renato Augusto should be a good buy if he settles down. His style is a mix of Kaka and Gerrard. Only critique - and a big one - is that he cannot play too well in tight spaces - just like Gerrard.

Sergio Aguero - He will be too expensive. Plus he is dating Maradona's daughter - you know how that story ends - Cocaine!

Dos Santos - I have some doubts about whether he can really make it to the very top sha. Either it is his decision making, or lack of strength - something is just missing sha. We will wait and see.

I have said before, I would like Quaresma. People say Quaresma is inconsistent but I don't think so. In every big game, the boy excels. I have seen him against Brazil @ Emirates (I have to take 50 showers whenever I come back from Emirates) and he was the best player - much better than Ronaldo. Also, for Portugal, he produces in every game. It is only when he plays those other rubbish Portuguese teams that he starts to mess around, trying new tricks that don't come off.