₦airaland Forum

obiorathesubtle:
[color=#990100] one thing you have to understand is that.. Staying faithful is not easy at all!!



Please ehn.. To err is human and to forgive is divine.. You just have to forgive him.. For better for worse abi?[/color]

Nwambada, odi possible na nwoke ka na eri nani ofe egusi kwa-mbosi na eri e ofe ogbono na ofe okazi?

amokeme:
I can live with a cheating husband, but I can't cope with an abusive husband.
My point is forgive him, though it's not easy atall. The Trust will be gone.. but try to.

I like the fact that more women are beginning to realise the fact that a man shall not live by bread alone but sometimes need doughnuts and buns to survive. Though bread will still be his favourite.

permanentgrace:
Their reward is in heaven.

Haha. Why so? Are you inferring they don't get paid?

This is child abuse. She's obviously an unfit parent. Little wonder the boy stole. He lacked proper home grooming.

Have sex just 15times a year? That's way less than twice a month. Choi. Hubby doesn't find you attractive and he's prolly hitting it with some smashy babe outside.

Quit that relationship. Dude strikes me as one who's possessive and domineering and would want to use his money to manipulate you hence he feels threatened by you working

Lol. Biko what's the situation of teachers in this country if I may ask. That's the only interest I have in your post.

Griffon:
I've always seen the nebula hypothesis to be a naturalistic conjecture.

It's one theory that can't even explain how the sun, stars and other planets came to be.

To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start.

Even if by chance the sun and the planets were formed by a collapsing nebula, why then is the sun not spinning in the same plane as the planets? Why is its axis tilted 7. 167 º away from the ecliptic?

Thisame theory predicts a prograde motion for all planets but we have Venus traveling in an opposite direction (retrograde).

Inconsistency I say

Yes, that's why it's a hypothesis and like every other hypothetical theories they are laced with some inconsistencies. But however inconsistent they are or seem it's worthy to note that they are practicalities and more evidential than the religious theory of how the universe came into existence.

My understanding of the nebula hypothesis is that the way most stars and solar systems form is that there's a mass of dust, gas, and debris in a section of space such as a nebula.

And due to a hubbub such as an asteroid passing through the dust cloud it'll cause some of the dust to start to clump together. With gravity being a purely attractive force that's directly proportional to the mass of an object, the small clump of dust will exert a slight gravitational pull on the surrounding environment.

More dust, gases, and small pieces of debris will be attracted to the small clump of matter which will increase in size over time. The larger it gets the stronger it's gravitational field will be, it'll start to attract hydrogen and deuterium which are very plentiful in space and it'll continue to get bigger. As it increases in size the gravity compresses the object more and more.

This in turn leads to it generating heat, it will start to spin as it attracts matter due to the matter striking it at different angles and matter passing by it and being pulled into its orbit.

Eventually enough heat and pressure are generated by the object that it will create a massive thermonuclear explosion and become a star. It'll have primarily hyrdogen as it's fuel source and it's core will start turning into helium as the by-product of hydrogen fusion.

The resulting explosion of the star being born will blow away all of the dust and rocks except those that have managed to collide together and become planets or moons.

So, yes your laid down theory is a plausible antithesis view but this is just a bit more detailed as to how a nebula can give birth to a star and the circumstances as to how it happens.

YourMain:
The first rule of science is Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It's literally the first rule of any branch of science. Something can't come from nothing.

I was just curious as to what your theory was. Being a deist you still believe in a higher power. Just that he/she/it doesn't intervene with the universe. I was wondering if you thought the higher being was the creator of the universe and if you didn't what would be your theory ?

It's actually been a while since I've deliberated on the matter aspect connected to the creation of universe. But the Universe, is believed, to have originally been a single condensed point, that contained all matter and material in all of existence. From that point on, the Big Bang. Now where all that matter came from, I do not know. I cannot explain where the matter came from, though what I do know, is that there is more evidence behind the 'Big Bang', than there is God.

I sense that question isn't dissimilar to the popular polemic citation by theists that matter didn't come from nothing, right? If that's the case, in same paradigm of wanting to know where matter may have emerged from since nothing comes from nothing, where does your God come from? How did he came about?

blackjack21:
so you believe in God then.

Tell me about your version of God.

Deism doesn't means the believe of a God. It's just a belief that subscribes to God's existence based on concrete evidence and are more or less like agnostics who are in the neutral.

Though a version of deism believes that there could be (not definite) a supernatural being who has abandoned his creation. And this set of deists are also swayed by evidence that stretches beyond sectarianism and organised religion. I'm the former.

bqlekan:
Lol.. No problem bro.. Time?

Let's settle for anytime from 6pm on Saturday. But I'd like to point out that whatever question anyone is putting forward they should take a stance and not just ask.

Like if one is asking for example how did oxygen came about? They should tender how and where energy emerged from before the other person would either agree or disagree citing his reasons.

Not like you asked earlier where did the first human came from without stating what you think. Applies to YourMain as well. Cheers.

YourMain:
No. The earth came from a Big Bang. I mean the whole of it. The whole universe.

But it's ok take your time

We do not know for certain when the universe began. Scientifical inventions are a continuum process and with time more experimental theories will emerge. Just like humans knew nothing about the Big Bang and other innovations that have come to light over time so does more details about the universe keeps unraveling.

We know when the expansion began (what is described in the Big Bang theory): 13,700 million years ago.

There are many hypothesis about it which have more plausible backings than religion.

I can give at least one natural solution. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, making it both eternal and uncaused. Now I could simply assert that an eternal magical Genie started it all, this claim is no less magical/supernatural than the Gods humans imagine to exist.

It also doesn't really tell us why there is "something" rather than nothing. While we don't have all the answers, all of the answers we do have so far have been natural, from the beginning of this "state" of the universe to how the planets and stars were formed. We also have natural answers to how and why life is on this planet.

My question to you and other theists is why would you assert a "magical" solution to the "unknown" rather than expecting a "natural" solution even if we don't yet "know"?

blackjack21:
Dear sir,

awon atheist weyrey 10000%.




yours faithfully

Haha. I don't like to identify with atheism though. I'd prefer to be labelled a deist. But still nothing do us.

YourMain:
Ronald4lif just curious oo

How do you think the universe came into existence

The universe resulted from debris from the big bang. May I refer you to read up nebula hypothesis. I've addressed this many times and would elucidate at a convenience time if you don't mind.

bqlekan:
Wow! I love this. God willing tomorrow, we can have this debate. Tired after a hard day work. when will it be convenient for you tomorrow?

Haha. Bro, this is a debate that needs critical thinking and impulsive ratiocinations. I'm at work at the moment and didn't even know how I put that up under my present tight engagement. I'd suggest we leave it for weekend, if that's fair to you? At least we can disagree to agree.

bqlekan:
wow! Evolution? Abiogenesis? Nah! That Has Been refuted by Louis Pasteur. Life can't be formed from non living matter.. even Darwin admitted to this fact.. look it up pls.


Going to evolution of man, how did we evolve.. ? Can we debate on this?

Sure I'm for an open rational debate anytime. Life can't be form from a non-living matter? Then what are those larva species I see on my butter whenever its due dates elapses?

According to Darwin, evolution results from the following:

1) Offspring inherit their parents' traits, but there is also variation (offspring aren't a pure 50/50 mix, and new traits show up sometimes).

2) More offspring are born than will survive.

3) The environment acts on individuals, so that ones with beneficial traits have a higher chance of survival, while ones with detrimental traits have a lower chance of survival.

4) Individuals with a higher chance of survival have a higher chance of reproducing.

5) At least some of the offspring of the survivors will inherit the traits that had helped them to survive.

Repeat the process enough times, and with enough individuals, and the entire population will gradually evolve over many generations. It will do so in response to it's current environment, and with no thought or planning. By "evolve" I mean that certain traits will become more or less common, some new ones will show up, and some old ones will disappear. Evolution doesn't always require transitioning into a new species or becoming more complex.

I should point out, though, that Darwin's work is 150 years out of date. He was right about a lot of stuff, but some of the finer points were off, and he was missing pieces of the puzzle. Since his time, scientists have discovered genetics, which explain how traits are passed on from parents to offspring, and also where the first variation (first human) may have evolves from. His work provided an amazing foundation for the modern theory of evolution, but it's no longer "Darwin's Theory" (unless you're speaking historically and talking about his original work).

In contrast, religion hasn't provided any experimental basis on how human came about beyond written representations in holy books. So, what should I believe, a plausible evidence based experiments or books written by some primitive men?

Mhizkel:
All true. I can testisfy to No.2
Though not a business tycoon, but an artiste.
Wizkid's cousin who actually is my casual friend.
The rate of which ladies flock around him is so annoying all because of his status. And the clown even use that as one of his wooing lines like "Hey! I'm Wizkid's cousin, you know?"


The feather brained ladies also get carried away with the gliberish and wack line. Funny thing is; they named him "WC" (Wizkid's Cousin)

wristbangle:
Seems oliviaarims don become romanceland celebrity


Where is ronald 4lif sef?

Lol. Egbon mi, party dey go on here? Wait, make I grab sit o.

bqlekan:
Bro, how do you think the first man came into existence?

He came through evolution and abiogenesis formation. This has been answered countless times.

Synzu:
U were created to worship him. So you should fear and obey him.

I don't have to fear him because he 'created' me. The term fear sounds dictatorial, intimidation and blackmail and I don't worship anything that feast on authoritarianism and autarchical and which is not receptive to individual's right to belief/doctrine.

The only people who created me are my parents. They had sex and I was born.

beeserious:
Ds ur grammar is too mush o.Dnt break our small heads.
How are you.

Hehe, I'm good. How about ya?

Synzu:
Oboy fear God oo

Okay o. I must fear and obey him lest I face his wrath but he loves me unconditionally. I hear you boss.

Synzu:
Atheist much?

Not far from the truth.

Indeed there's no place that one can't worship God even in the sky. The woman should have just prevail on the pilots to leave the cockpit and let God ferry the plane. That would have been a better proof to show God was in control of the flight.

Not yet. But I've been provoked many times but never did. The only reason I'd ever go physical on a lady is if she assaulted me first. That one go be double slap sef.

Playing hard to get indeed. That time don pass o, no one gets such patience to be waiting for a lady's response. If you chyke am she no gree, you move on jeje.

BTW, where's the source of this piece? I can bet my balls that the OP didn't indite this piece.

A man owns himself.

naija8080:
Don't be quick to jump to conclusion. I'm sure the man has been sharing his salary the time that he worked with her but she as most women do when they start working especially when the man is temporarily jobless...they start acting up and seeing him as less of a man.

The story never said the wife refused to share her salary with him but rather refused a total remittance of her monthly wages to him. He may have shared his salary with his wife doesn't mean the wife should remit her monthly salary to him. The man is shameless and a lazy ass and should be ashame of himself.

ladyF:
change your office o, make them no infect you with their sadness

Really sadists of a colleagues I tell ya.

Concocted crap.

Mzztega mi novia happy birthday darl. I wish you happiness, good health and unprecedented success as you begin this new year. Enjoy love.