₦airaland Forum

klevotino:
Alrite noted, shey it just to swallow the garlic with water first thing in the morning and how many a day. Thanks..

klevotino:
Dose it work for watery sperm?

klevotino:
these garlic thin i go try am be that

There are reports that Senator Dino Melaye, representing Kogi west senatorial district, has only three credits in his 1992 West African Examination Council result.

NAIJ.com gathered that the senator only passed Agric, Biology and CRS in his result which was obtained by Sahara reporters.

Melaye also reportedly lied about where he got his secondary school certificate from. The Initial profile of the senator before it was altered on the Nigerian Senate official website shows that the senator obtained his secondary school certificate from a primary school.

The Senate's website showed that Melaye got his secondary school certificate from Gandun Nassarawa primary school instead of Abdulazeez Attah memorial secondary school where he allegedly got his certificate from.

Recall that Senator Melaye's trouble started when it was alleged that he didn't have a BSC certificate from Ahmadu Bello University which he attended because he allegedly failed some course in his final year exams.


While the world awaits the authority of Ahmadu Bello University to speak on the scandal, two other universities; London School of Economics and Harvard University have denied that the senator graduated from their schools.

Meanwhile, the Special Assistant on Public Communications and New Media to Ekiti State Governor, Lere Olayinka has said that President Muhammadu Buhari is ruling Nigeria with NEPA bill.

Olayinka said Senator Dino Melaye is qualified to use Toilet paper to serve his people because the president has set the precedent.

helpforever:
My sperm is normal and very thick like that of a normal person.

Not watery

helpforever:
My story is longer than this but I cannot remember all for now.

Mods please, I need this on the frontpage.

Lalasticlala
Seun
RoyalRoy

nkemma54:
cant bliv u dared to insult me coz i said bulshit. wow, nd u cant even spell 'secret' right. not ur fault, enjoy ur ban.
fyi the emboldened part is ur bulshit comment. think before u post next time. the housemates may not have the power of the internet (even ur retarded sibling would know that) but ur comment is still a technical bulshit.

u clearly are a myopic maggot

ekanDamie:
for the first time I actually decided to watch on YouTube to see what warranted eviction since I know immoral acts have always been condoned in the show before now.
I totally see nothing wrong in what kemen did based on the values of the show.
if they allow opposite sex to creep into or share bed, I see no reason why touching is not possible. besides the lady in question neither cautioned him or complained to big broda in any diary section, so why big broda dey form HOLYfield.

modified: for those questioning my morality, we are talking of an immoral show here not project fame or ultimate search, tho am not among those that say BBN should be banned, but it's an immoral show and TBoss has been caught in the immoral act alota times. so all of you taking bout kemen being immoral on BBN please, what else is he to be? a business analyst?
Silence means consent if TBoss did not show her displeasure in words or in action, the Eviction was a huge misconception as d guy did put it.

Vickiweezy:
I thought BBN was a reality show and not a movie.
When them start to dey add scripts and nollywood film trick?
Which one be dream again? Na wetin Big brother tell am make im act? Lie??

AgentOfAllah:
Facts are statements that inhabit a universal reality OP. You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact, and claim you don't care about the scientific position on them; especially when in the first place, you were trying to use science to validate your claim.

Is the earth part of a galaxy, OP?

It is neither that simple, nor is it helpful to subject science to the primitive rules of common sense OP. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the processes that bring planets into existence are the same processes the cause the universe to expand. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Planets come into existence during the formation of new stars; which themselves, come into existence due to gravitational collapse of molecular clouds. The heavier elements in these clouds are what eventually form planets, not the expansion of space OP. Like I said, read in the evolution of the solar system.

OP, these are NOT new planets. These are newly discovered planets. There is a huge difference! That these planets weren't discovered before doesn't mean they never existed. New planets have very peculiar disk-like shapes; and are anything but fully formed spheres! Your question erroneously assumes NASA has looked everywhere in space for planets. This is an absurd proposition, given the vastness of space. It also betrays your staggering ignorance as to how telescopes work. A telescope is basically just a camera that can see distant things. Just like your camera, a telescope can only see things it is pointed at. Making the kind of claim you are making is the same as saying because humans have cameras, everything on earth has been photographed; therefore, if you see something new in a photograph, it is newly created and didn't exist before. (I hope you can now appreciate the absurdity of your suggestion).

I have implied no such thing, either directly or indirectly. And no, expansion doesn't impose the need for material addition to anything. This is a misguided assumption! When you expand an elastic material (such as a rubber band/balloon), would you say you have added something to that material?

Of course expansion does affect the earth, but there is a counteractive force known as gravity which bounds the earth to the sun; hence the reason it remains in orbit.

Please don't go back to that erroneous proposition. I have demonstrated how absurd and inaccurate it is. To be ignorant is excusable; but to be obstinately ignorant isn't.

I know the words that were used in the Quran, and I am sure that word "samaa" doesn't translate to "Universe". It simply translates to "heaven", which is why the following verse referenced "earth" as a conceptually distinct entity. The word "universe, as I have said before, does not distinguish between "heavens" (assuming this means everything contained outside of earth) and "earth". It looks like you're the one who should be doing the googling, not me.

I think I know enough of science to know what scientists mean when they mention the word "universe", and it does not distinguish between heaven and earth. You may try to brush this off as a linguistic problem, but this is just applying band aid to an infected cut. The Quran clearly imposes a conceptual distinction between heaven and earth; something the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't!

You still don't get it, do you, OP? There is no sky above us or below us. There's just the universe, and all that there is in it; and make no mistake, we ARE a material part of this universe. Expansion applies to everything in the universe, although, other forces can counteract it. Gravity makes you stick to earth, this unfortunately skews your perception and makes you believe there are things above you. There is no objective direction in the universe, there are just relative directions from fixed points. You may want to add Newtonian inertial frames of reference to the list of things to study. You don't quite understand relative positions, it seems.

OP, I am a material physicist. I think it should be clear to you that I know precisely what is meant by the word "material". As for "essential" and "important". It seems you don't even realise that those words are synonymous. At any rate, I doubt either you or a person whose sole expertise is law, is competent enough to teach me the meaning of words that are used so banally like components of an anthem in my field. Choose your advice carefully!

AgentOfAllah:
Thanks for your time

OP, this explanation isn't at all relevant to my petition. Besides, I know how expansion works.

It is not clear why the OP believes earth is not a material part of the universe, however, this is an incorrect assertion. Expansion isn't the only force acting upon the universe. There are other forces too, for example gravity, in particular, which is mostly responsible for keeping the earth together. If universal expansion isn't acting on objects within the universe, then how would scientists be able to detect that distant galaxies are receding, thus inferring the expansion of the universe? OP has wrongly imposed a conceptual distinction between the earth as a unit of the universe and the universe as the sum total of everything in the physical world. There is no physicist worth the title who holds this misguided opinion, nor in fact, is there any scientific support for this Viewpoint.

It is not clear what OP is implying here. Does OP mean to say emergent planets in the universe are a result of expansion? I hope not, but if so, may I suggest OP should do a little reading on evolution of the solar system. Important clues as to how stars and planets come about will be found there. As a bonus, this information is readily available on Wikipedia, and may be accessed by typing the emboldened term in Google.

I took the first thing up with you OP, because you seem to agree with the real author on the points made. It seems unusual that such an important scientific fact would be stated in the Quran, yet no Muslim scientist corrected mainstream science on its erroneous belief. Don't you find this absurd? Maybe the more accurate explanation is that the original author and yourself (by association) are trying desperately to take advantage of the Quran's ambiguity to reinterpret it so as to conform to current scientific viewpoints.

No! You have made nothing clear, you have only attempted to dubiously redefine the word "universe" to exclude the earth, and it is not clear what gives your redefinition any flesh, except perhaps, the need to persist in the erroneous understanding of the word "heaven" as used in the verse the original Author referenced. I believe with your explanation, I definitely have a more proper understanding of that word than you do.

akilo1:
how much she stole?that money nor fill buy Peugeot ooo in GEJ voice,abeg madam bring back our money

femi4:
Well, can a man be alpha and Omega?

Jesus himself says in the book of revelation that:

Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

AgentOfAllah:
OP, is there a conceptual distinction between the word "samaa" (heaven) as used in this verse, and "aard" (earth) as used in the subsequent one. If there is, then it is misleading to state that the word "samaa" refers to the universe; as the word "universe" consists of both the heavens and earth.

OP, it does appear there were no competent Muslim scientists to correct this erroneous notion of a static universe up until the dawn of the 20th century. This is rather curious since surely, it was blindingly obvious to them that according to the foremost scientific textbook, the Quran, the universe was indeed expanding. Can you comment on this OP?

The emboldened is patently false! Light of stars do NOT turn redder according to their distance. Their colours change based on the direction of their velocity vector with respect to the observer. Also, your description is way too simplistic; and only applies to light in the visible spectrum! Actually, the colour isn't that important, it's the wavelength/frequency that matters. When a light source, like any other wave, moves towards an observer, the observer witnesses a so-called blueshift, where the apparent frequency of the light seems to increase (or its apparent wavelength reduces). On the other hand, when the source is receding, the observer witnesses a so-called redshift, where its apparent wavelength increases/its apparent frequency reduces. Unfortunately, the terminologies are a misnomer which can easily mislead people who aren't aware of the definitions of these terms.

The OP hasn't in any way demonstrated this claim. As I have pointed out, questions linger as to the real meaning of the word "heaven" in the verse upon which this claim is predicated. It seems desperate, and quite frankly, dubious to impose a misleading interpretation on a word just to give your holy book scientific credibility. Science is not built on ambiguity OP!

HiddenShadow:
You are right but don't forget that the SW ganged up against Jonathan out of selfish interest.

So we can say God is about to teach the SW a lesson they won't forget in generations to come

Rayhandrinni:
"my iffa iffa nigerian friends" ...."iffahear" lol...omo we nigerians unique in our own way....i saw summin on mtv...they asked the SA babe how she can identify a nigerian, she said ... "they always saying ... oya,sha and nawa"

drnoel:
At portion highlighted. That's why I mentioned that study I spoke about. That's also why I did start that that since the Bible and the Quran where not directly written by the protagonists its possible that many things were misquoted and or misrepresentated.
That study I mentioned explicitly stated that the Mohammed was misrepresented in the Quran and that the Quran was not seamlessly written like the Bible was but was disjointed as if several people of different orientations and mindset wrote the books. They also gave proof the misrepresentation in several passages of the Quran. This case was also of the bible but to a far lesser form.

drnoel:
Dont get byside urself. The Bible and Quran were written about people including Jesus and Mohammed. On the other hand those Philosophers I mentioned left notes, memos, written proof of their existence. To cap it all, they were then mentioned in more details by other scholars so no one can confuse they didn't exist.

drnoel:
Yes u understood that but what u forget is the act of misrepresentation. As u weren't there when both Jesus or Mohammed lived, how can u be sure that what they said they did was really so and not aadulterated misrepresentation of facts?

drnoel:
But u miss the point. Everyone knows transmitted messages are 2% distorted. Everyone knows Jesus didn't write the Bible neither did Mohammed the Quran. How could they, like u said they couldn't cos they were uneducated. That doesn't mean they didn't have masters around them who studied them while they lived and died. I once came across a research on the authors of the Bible and Quran and the investigators arrived at the fact that those men where educated to an extend, if not they couldn't pull off what they did.
My point is this. Many things done by Jesus and Mohammed where not recorded. Also the stuffs written in the Bible and Quran are just opinions of a select few based on their belief and understanding. It is possible that Mohammed was misquoted many times or that Jesus was misrepresented and never actually did or said what they wrote they did.

drnoel:
These men where the first ones to talk intensively about the universe and must of what they said are just copied and replicated by others

drnoel:
Yes to ur second paragraph. I was wondering when u will check ur google, am glad u did. Pythagoras and Socrates are older than both the Bible and Quran.
If u remember my sentence that is why I asked the other writer why Galileo who was a Christian didn't mention that stuff he said about the book of Job.

drnoel:
Interesting to note. Pls post the chapter and verse. Its not possible that I missed that but am willing to learn everyday. I ask myself though if that is true why didn't Galileo mention it when he made his postulates. Galileo was a believer.

drnoel:
How old do u think the Bible is? Do u know even books older than the Bible and Quran have been found and shown to contain certain postulates in both the Bible and Quran?
Do u even know when Socrates even walked the earth? OMG by ur statement its obvious u are not only naive, ignorant and uneducated as u called me. It is obvious u are just here to mislead people. Please house someone tell this man when Socrates and Pythagoras existed

goingape1:
see them forming lie!
most theory and if not many discovery was base on the bible and not Qur'an!

the Qur'an was just a counterfeited copy of the bible, nothing much and nothing less.
the only thing I know the Quran is legitimately unique is that verse which talk about jihad (killing of other people)

drnoel:
So u mean the Quran was there before Galileo, Pythagoras, Socrates, Da Vinci and the rest renowned astronomers? Please I don't mean to be rude but don't be naive. All the hypothesis of these men have been either confirmed by mordern science or disproved. So far in my Studies there has been nothing cited or quoted from the Quran or the Bible that has been repeated by the fathers of astronomy and I have read both the Quran and the Bible to confirm. In fact a friend of mine wrote it as his thesis for his finals years back. Lets please stick to facts and not fantasy

drnoel:
No am not muslim so despute that claimes with all severity.

I need to correct a misnomer without being bias about religion or denominations. Please the Universe is a constantly evolving complex of bodies. It has nothing to do with expansion or a prophecy of islam, Quran, Christianity or the Bible. The proofs are there, lets not deceive ourselves.