₦airaland Forum

What's the name of the nollywood movie?

Griffon, here's what one Dr. Lydia Hallis of the University of Glasgow said after a new research about the origin of water on the earth as conducted last year.

‘The Baffin Isand rocks were collected back in 1985, and scientists have had a lot of time to analyze them in the intervening years. As a result of their efforts, we know that they contain a component from Earth’s deep mantle.

‘On their way to the surface, these rocks were never affected by sedimentary input from crustal rocks, and previous research shows their source region has remained untouched since Earth’s formation. Essentially, they are some of the most primitive rocks we’ve ever found on Earth’s surface, and so the water they contain gives us an invaluable insight into Earth’s early history and where its water came from.

‘We found that the water had very little deuterium, which strongly suggests that it was not carried to Earth after it had formed and cooled. Instead, water molecules were likely carried on the dust that existed in a disk around our Sun before the planets formed. Over time this water-rich dust was slowly drawn together to form our planet.’

‘Even though a good deal of water would have been lost at the surface through evaporation in the heat of the formation process, enough survived to form the world’s water.

“It’s an exciting discovery, and one which we simply didn’t have the technology to make just a few years ago. We’re looking forward to further research in this area in the future.’

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



Ronald 4lif shey you dey dodge this question abi?

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.

gidjah:
Had to take the bull by its horn, when she said she misses her period?,wouldnt wanna scatter kids around....so marriage things if u know what mean

I admire your sense of responsibility and values. Very commendable and I hope other guys who find themselves in same situation learn to take responsibility when it beckons.

As if the hubby didn't also send her his unclad pics. How did a prostitute get your hubby number in the first place? Sleazy coward who chooses a soft target than confronting her randy hubby.

What do you want to do with female panties? Sniff them?

Didn't he know she was dirty before marrying her? That's just an excuse to cheat.

Same applies to being unromantic and poor cook. All these are the reason why people date and cohab in some cases. So, they are just flimsy excuse to cheat and has no bearing whatsoever to a wandering man.

Cutehector:
of course I want them to keep falling.. it's a pirry to dem

It's always been abt men.. isn't it?

Lol. But it's no pity to anyone as the nookie is beneficial to both party, infact more beneficial to them sef. We're just helping their ministry.

Life it's about interest, we discover ours and exploit any credulous individual who makes themselves available. So, yea it's all about guys.

Lol. Busted.

Cutehector:
Mchew.. a guy can be d sweetest person on earth just to get tha cookie.

It's a pity da ladies will always continue to fall for dat.

Don't you want them to keep falling. Do you want conji to destroy mens.

bqlekan:
no, you have to prove that..

coming back to your other post.. just been busy

I think this should depends on your definition of living. There are variant animate and inanimate compounds. Life is made up of proteins. Proteins are made from amino acids. There have been numerous experiments where they put nitrogen, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen and helium (the components of our universe) in a tube and applied energy (electricity) and those individual C,H,N,O,He molecules assembled into amino acids. Amino acids are not alive but they are the building blocks of "life".

For instance in soil formation, phosphates and water combine with nitrates. Carbondioxide in air combines with those items in photosynthesis to become chlorophyll, which is the material that makes a plant have its energy. So in the process, four inorganic materials became the fuel for a living thing, and in the process of doing so, allowed that thing to grow. Those raw materials became the material of the plant.

Consequently, animals eat the plant. They turn it into proteins.

Furthermore, we eat the animals. We turn it into proteins.

And yet it started from inorganic materials.

AyamConfidence:
please mr. I need those evidences

You've to first lay out your discountenance about evolution and we can pick it up from there.

daretodiffer:
I was referring to religions impacts on science and the modern day. Regardless we can go back and forth all day, but it is laughable to say that the whole world got it wrong to believe in the existence of some other powerful force(s). Philosophically, life is too complex to banish that thought from the mind.


Evolution is still just a theory. I believe in mutation but to tell me that every bird came from dinosaur or human from a monkey , I am going to disagree on that.

The meaning of theory varies. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially.

For instance, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics) and so on.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. So to say evolution is just a theory doesn't dismiss it.

And that the world (believers I must add) believes in religion isn't enough basis to admit it existence without substantial evidence to support it claims. Religion is a mad made invention and like every invention they are expected to be proven.

The argument of birds not evolving from dinosaurs can only be pushed further if you mind telling where and how birds emerged from.

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.

Religion isn't the reason I'm here today until there are substantial evidence to even proof there's a supernatural being. Man predates religion and so to assert that we are here coz of man made invention is laughable.

Evolution isn't just a theory but an observation with scientific backed evidence.

bqlekan:
lol, dont be so sure..

maybe we should start from the scratch.. Abiogenesis..

and yes, m having network ish here too.. reason for the late replies

You don't think abiogenesis is real and that non-living matter can form into a living organism?

bqlekan:
ok ronald4lyf, i dont agree with your argument on fossils and mutations. let me make them clear and see how evolution they refute your claims

let us take the cambrian fossils as an example. this is the oldest fossil ever found, dating over half a billion years. yet the animals found in this fossil are in complex forms.The cambrian fossil demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today. How did the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden? and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged?

there has been no evidence of an intermediate fossil found.. atleast if organisms evolved slowly, we should have a transitional form. reptile/ape, bear/whale. no such fossil has been found. even Darwin wrote this in his book 'Origin of species' permit me to quote him

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me"


on mutation.. mutation(minor changes in their genes, and the fittest survives) minor changes is not sufficient enough for change in species. Mutation is a destructive mechanism which causes organisms to be diseased or dead. an example is cancer cells. evolutionist actually carried out mutation experiments on fruit flies. they all ended up diseased, deformed or dead.


And yes, all living organisms were intelligently designed. the complexity of DNA, Embryology, proves it.

Cambrian aren't the world oldest fossils. Some scientists have said the world oldest fossils are barbra streisand but others have refuted it and said the oldest known fossils are stromatolites, thought to consist of the remains of ancient bacteria. So for what we know, oldest known fossil of stromatolites is almost five times older than the oldest known fossil of a multicellular organism, which dates back to about 600 million years ago.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one theory in crisis really, in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics in recent years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Renowned molecular biologist Michael Denton once said, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Mutations that effect an organism is dependent on the importance of where the mutation occurs. Importance is fundamental. It does not matter if the size of the mutation is big or small (a single nucleotide substitution can have a profound effect - Sickle cell anemia is a good example). And a mutation does not have to be a deletion, as it can be additions (as in transposon ), or even substitutions. Genetic mutation can't make one species evolve into another species entirely. And scientists don't claim that a "single" mutation can make one species evolve into another specie entirely.

They believe however that speciation involves the following; evolution is about the "accumulation" of "many" mutations. Mutations alone don't cause evolution; natural selection is required as well; and finally evolution alone doesn't cause speciation; there needs to be genetic isolation between two populations.

An example of a mutant specie is rhagoletis pomonella, which is the North American hawthorn maggot fly, which has since about 1640 produced a variant that feeds on apple trees and breeds at a different time. This was first noticed in the early 18th century. Attempts to cross breed the apple variant with the original hawthorn feeding stock fail about 95% of the time, so the two subspecies have almost entirely separated genetically and are likely to form different species within a few hundred years.

Bqlekan, I'd address any further comment of yours later on as I'm heading home and would be on the steering. Just to let you know ahead of a late reply. One thing is certain, this debate is an exhaustible one and no one truly have 100% facts as to the mysteries surrounding the world.

daretodiffer:
I don't understand people that do not believe in God. It is like saying something came from nothing. I have every reason to reject that ideology, the complexity of life is too overwhelming. Personally, I think we are all irrational. Each to his own beliefs: (

No one is saying nothing came from nothing, miss. We are only seeking for natural evidence than relying on theories and beliefs with no or little evidence. And would you rather human don't seek for knowledge and fall on the unknown? If yes, then we may all have still be holding the believe that earth quake, tsunami, different health issues and other natural disasters are creation of God when they are natural disasters. What do you reckon humans do?

bqlekan:
i'm against evolution and abiogenesis.. here are my reasons
*life could not have started by chance
*Evolution failed to provide how life originated
*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims
* evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)
*law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chance
*Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new species
*Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of Evolution

this are just tips..

Alright. Fossils are just one part of the evidence of evolution. (Other types of evidence include DNA, common genes, proteins, structures, vestigial structures, atavisms, embryology, biogeography, etc.) but fossil evidence actually supports evolution in a number of ways.

Fossils give evidence of evolution in a number of ways. And not only does it support evolution by the changing structures over time, it can also disprove a creationist theory which states everything was created at the same time. If that was true, then we would see every type of animal's fossil in every layer and every time period in the record, we would have human fossils found in the same layers as dinosaurs and any other ridiculous combination.

We only ever see animals that lived during the time that layer was formed and we don't see a more evolved creature in a layer earlier than the earliest fossil of it's ancestor

1. The depths of layers in the soil give us an indication of the *relative age* of the different fossils ("this fossil is older than that one".

2. The dating of rocks found in the same layers as the fossils gives us an indication of the *absolute age* ("this fossil is about 50 million years old, and that one is about 55 million years old".

3. The geographic *location* of the fossil is important to establish possible geneology.

4. The types of other fossils we find in the same layers tells us about the environment in which they were living ... was it a coral reef, or a tropical forest, or an icy tundra with deciduous bushes.

5. The relative *structures* of a sequence of fossils, found in the same geographic area, same environment, and sequential layers of soil gives us evidence of a *progression* of species from ancestors to descendants. The more fossils we find, the more we can fill out the family tree.

On mutation - Evolution is just a phrase used to describe when a organism gets a adaptation through genetic mutation that is beneficial to the organisms survival and procreation. In a sense it does bring about new species but that is not the point of evolution. Evolution just describes the favoring of specific traits in an environment that allow a species to procreate.

Evolution works through the organisms with the best modifications surviving, and passing on these modifications.

Modifications in organisms arise through genetic mutations, with slight changes in the genes of the organism. Hence, the organism will survive and pass on its slightly different genes to the next generation.

Over time, as many mutations happen and are passed on, the DNA will become more and more different. Eventually, the modified animals will have such different DNA that their DNA will be incompatible with the original ancestor, hence a new species.

How do you think life originated then before I can answer this with an informed suggestion.

Fossils evidence didn't dismiss evolution like you assert.

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

Lol. So are you for or against evolution or creationist? And what are your reason(s)?

I'm for evolution and my reason is coming up in a subsequent comment.

bqlekan:
wipe it off man
where is ronald?
get started

Griffon:
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.

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

Rossikk:
You are an ignoramus with no common sense. How does one single street's lights prove that that is the norm for street lights "in abroad"? What is "in abroad"? India? Mexico? Italy? Venezuela? Cuba? Germany? Or all the nations on earth? What research have you conducted on any of those countries to know what colour their street lights are? Do you even know how many countries there are on earth? In fact you lack basic common sense. I suggest you spend more time on useful endeavours instead of posting illiterate, inferiority complex fuelled garbage online. Mr "in abroad'.

Chei. Look at how you murdered the son of man. Be merciful bruv, show mercy.

TheSonOfMark:
[color=royalblue]
My best bet is that she's still a teenager between the ages of 18 and 19,who characteristically , always gets giddy about the overly-romanticized notion of relationships. Always expecting her thought-up 'Prince Charming' to be at her beck and call whilst the relationship revolves around her and her preferences which are ever-changing.

Solution : Avoiding DATING teenagers.
[/color]

True. Could even be younger than 18 and hasn't experience relationship disappointments before. Prolly her first dating experience and falsely assume her wants must be gratified without considering it feasibility.

The more teenagers like her suffers heartbreaks the more they adjust and realizes that a relationship doesn't revolves around them.

Tell her she can't see you always and you also can't call all the time. Let her understand that you've got your own life to live and better things to work on than be with her all the time. You mustn't led her obstruct your life, work and career just so to please her. I'm guessing she isn't finely groomed and prolly insecure too.

But her insecurities and precariousness shouldn't be your business really. It's her problem and she should seek for solutions herself. Same bae will dump your ass for another should you not meet up to her expectations tomorrow, financially and otherwise.