₦airaland Forum

biomust:
I strongly believe that the evidence now is just too overwhelming to ignore.
I just don't see how this result stands. Like, It's right there. THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES.
The only reason people are skeptical of a court rescinding this stolen mandate is because this is Nigeria, where it has never happened before for a president to step down. But if it happens, I don't think anyone would protest, because even the most ardent batist can see and agree that the declaration was very much premature.
Hence we don't even see any celebration in any part of the country.
Sometimes I imagine if obi was declared president, how we would see churches overflowing with celebrations, beers and chants overflowing in football viewing centers.

Cows colored in labor party apparels donning the streets. People out on the streets draped in Nigerian flags.
That would have been the pictures that would saturate the internet.
But an expatriate coming into Nigeria right now wouldn't know someone just won the presidency.
No news of celebration anywhere. The "victory" is mired in completely solemnity and controversy.
And I think that portends what the future looks like under tinubu.

That is because even the BATists know who won their PU.

Like A Thief In The Night

Mahmood Yakubu waited till midnight to carry out his crime. He announced the winner and handed over the stolen mandate to Tinubu while the entire country was asleep.

By the time it was morning Nigeria looked like a crime scene. Everyone was in sorrow except the gangleader and his cronies who were seen jubilating while looking at their backs.

Many Days For The Thief

The mistake Yakubu and Tinubu made was to underestimate the people of this country especially the young ones. These are not like the older generations where everyone would turn a blind eye and pretend like it's OK.

Ole Ole Ole

The thief and his accomplice would be caught and the stolen property returned to its rightful owner- the people of Nigeria.

Bombblacks:
* Your explanation is not plausible. It's make believe and Cop-out to defend your so called Creator/designer.

* Your post actually points to a real problem. The concept of your Creator is so mutable that it can provide any ex-post facto reasoning for any scenario, because God is not well defined. He can remain ill defined because he doesn't actually exist - we never have to ascribe anything real to your Creator because he is never observable.

How did you reach the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

Any way, it was fun discussing with an intelligent individual like you. I enjoyed every bit of rational thinking.

Do have a pleasant day ahead.

A001:
You've explored all of them. This Nairaland na funny place.

You, a layman and religious zealot, know more than the experts conducting the search tirelessly then and spending billions of dollars on constructing telescopes and observatories to hunt for alien life.

Just stop mentioning me. I've better things to do with my time.

You are an intelligent person and I enjoyed discussing with you. Hope you have a pleasant day ahead.

A001:
Lols, the layman has more common sense sense than me because I'm telling you to stop talking ignorantly. Lols.

As said earlier, saying life only exists on earth with certainty shows you don't know the vast number of planets (tens of trillions) and the vast number of galaxies (hundreds of billions) discovered in the universe, and that's not the whole universe; just the explored areas in the observable universe.

So you've common sense and believe life only exists on a tiny blue dot in a universe with uncountable number of dots.

Lols, afi common sense na

You look at the vast number of tiny dots (planets) below and conclude only one of them contains life, and you call that common sense?

Uncle in those arrays of galaxies and stars you will not find life, not even an amoeba. The creator has chosen life only here on earth.

I keep marveling at that possibility at how life is so abundant here on earth, I mean any where you put a microscope you will see life. And yet, accross the rest of the vast universe in those pics you posted, and yet nothing. Absolutely nothing found. Not even an amoeba. I can only bow my head in wonder and awe.

Bombblacks:
There's no answer In what you just replied. Give a vivid explanation why you would think your Creator/designer created a vast universe to only put life in tiny dot. Am sure even you realize how dumb that is.

With due respect, your question is a stupid one (no insults please).

Why didn't Seu.n put an unlike button on his website? You will have to ask him for a vivid explanation and not me.

I have already told you that it's the decision of the creator. All I can say about that decision is that it is the source of your wonder. That wonder makes God God. If life was so common, people like you will say it is nature, or chemistry or biology. I will say the same too. But because it is not, we bow our heads in awe.

It's the same reason diamonds are carbon compounds with exactly the same chemistry with charcoal. Yet there is no comparison with their value. This is the reason I believe in a creator.

A001:
Spy360, you don't understand the way of science. I posted the excerpt below on how a scientist sees truth to show you that there's no absolute truth in science.

If you're looking for absolute truth, try religion, and science is not a religion.

What Does 'Truth' Mean To A Scientist?

1. There are no absolute truths in science; there are only approximate truths.

2. Whether a statement, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how closely you examine or measure the results.

3. Every scientific theory has a finite range of validity: inside that range, the theory is indistinguishable from true, outside of that range, the theory is no longer true.

This represents an enormous difference from how we commonly think about fact vs. fiction, truth vs. falsehood, or even right vs. wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/?sh=17f87fbf7820

You are confusing absolute statements from absolute truths. I have never even used the word truth in all my posts.

Absolute statements.

I am a man. Is an absolute statement. Whether it is true or not becomes a subject of empiricism.

You are not a scientist my brother. 😂

Focus on philosophy.

monerozi5590:
As a religious person, the word ABSOLUTE is a SACRED WORD. Only God is the absolute truth.

Scientists are careful of using absolute truth. Scientists provide a much more reliable truth or true enough.

You are right as a religious person.

However if you are discussing with a non-religious person, you cannot use such statements as they will consider it assumptions.

A001:
You're a funny guy. You think scientists would be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on telescopes and missions if we'll never know that life exists elsewhere apart from the Earth?

You're just making absolute statements that are false all about. That the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light means we'll never be able to observe certain regions of the universe called the unobservable universe.

That doesn't mean we'll never know alien life exists. You're just a layman anyway.

That's why you're making absolute statements all about.

How many papers have you even read on all these things you're saying to stay abreast with latest news on SETI?

How many books of Astrophysics and Cosmology have you read?

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

To aid SETI and search for planets that can support life were among the reasons for building the JWST which is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope launched in the 1990s.

The JWST cost $10 billion and close to 30 years to be built and is the current world's largest space observatory.

Even so, NASA is still planning to build more:

"NASA’S first Great Space Observatories were the Spitzer Infrared Space Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra x-ray Observatory and the Compton gamma-ray Observatory.

"Of the four, only Chandra and Hubble are still operational. But both NASA and the professional astronomical community are already discussing the yet unfunded next generation of space-based ‘New Great Observatories.’

"They are: The Habitable Worlds Observatory (IROUV), the X-ray Great Observatory (based on the Lynx X-ray Observatory Mission Concept), and the Far-Infrared (FIR) Great Observatory, based on the Origins Space Telescope Mission Concept.

"In 2020 fiscal year dollars, the Habitable Worlds Observatory which would be launched first would have a total cost of $11 billion. The other two observatories would clock in around $5 billion each.

If we can grow the budget then we can see all three in the sky by 2045, Grant Tremblay, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and AAS Vice President."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2023/01/27/after-webb-nasa-is-already-planning-new-great-space-observatories/

The search for alien life is an active research area in science that space agencies are dedicating billions of dollars to because most scientists don't see Earth as the only planet with life.

They're the experts and know it's unreasonable to think life only exists on a tiny blue dot in an unimaginably big universe.

It doesn't add up.

I totally support the search. It would be interesting if something is found.

But while they are searching, this model holds true for now. It's like being innocent until proven guilty.

From your post, you'll probably be dead before an amoeba is found on a distant exoplanet in a far away galaxy. The lay man has more common sense than you.

Bombblacks:
*We know what is needed for life. The elements that make up life on Earth are also, not coincidentally, the most common elements in the universe (Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen. it's not a question of if other life exist in the universe but when we discover them. It's far more likely that human technology is too primitive to see very far into space.


*We have only explored 9 planets up to date and only three we have landed in.


*There are thousands of exoplanets we have discovered which we feel comfortable can’t support life due to their makeup or proximity to a star and there are also many that we feel COULD support life. But we have no idea if they do until we send someone there. The problem is they are too far away and our technology is not developed to that extent yet.


*Why will your Designer/Creater create a massive universe and only put life in a tiny dot of it? Can you give an answer to that.

The very reason it sounds so unreal to you.

It is the state of wonder that makes it His decision. If there was a abundance of life- if there was any trace at all of life, people like you would dismiss his very existence. That's your answer.

Donjazet2:
Labor party on track to get much more national assembly seats that were illegally announced for many candidates. At least 30 more reps and 5 senators, imo state Senate and reps, bayelsa reps, akwaibom reps, ebonyi Senate and reps. And 7 rep seats in rivers including Hilda dokubo.

When. All is said and done, labor will have about 70+ reps and at least 15 Senators. Not bad for a party without structure.

...plus the presidency.

Peter Obi will reclaim his mandate- never ever forget that.

A001:
As a physicist, I don't use scientific theories and laws blindly and make absolute statements not stated in the theories.

As for Otem, I don't take anything he says as absolute as I don't believe in absolute truth, even Otem himself doesn't.

Then, I never told you or anyone to accept his claims and that's why I've never shared his book with anyone on this thread. I called many of the things he says claims for a reason.

I only accepted as true those things I was able to find corroborating proofs for from other sources.

If someone is saying the truth or lying, time will tell. That's why I don't bother myself to share his book with anyone.

The author used to send it to people, and those of us that got it read it and made our conclusions independently.

Your comment in the bolded means you are not a scientific person. My brother forget it. You are not a scientist.

Science is based on theories, those theories as far as the world of science and knowledge is concerned, remain absolute until proven otherwise.

If you cannot make absolute statements, then you shouldn't argue about any topic at all.

If your dog dies, and you bury it. Then someone asks you about your dog. Will you say 'well I can't make an absolute statement about what happened to my dog'?

I have used science to prove my point, I have used philosophy to prove my point, I have used probability to prove my point, then all you did was to wish them away by simply claiming you don't accept absolute statements even though they are scientific theories.

Bombblacks:
There are more stars in the Galaxy than grains of sand on the Earth. More Galaxies in the Universe than grains of sand on the Earth.
So you believe your God/creator made Galaxies and Universes of untold and unimaginable size and dropped sentient beings in only a tiny blue dot of it? It is highly improbable that there is no other life in the universe.

Thanks for commenting. Your assertion is based on assumption. Mine is based on probability.

So far from what we have seen from near by stars and indeed galaxies there's no sign of life. In over a billion planetary bodies investigated, there is no single sign of even amoeba. That's earth in over a billion samples of planets. That probability is high. If we go by that, the chances of finding life any where in the universe is as impossible as the chances of finding a particular mustard seed in the sands of all the beaches on the earth put together.

With all our technology, no single sign accross the observable universe. The fact that any alien life has not even contacted us speaks volumes is another big sign.

Worst still, we will never know because the universe is constantly expanding faster than the speed of light.

The fact that we will never know, has brought us to an inevitable conclusion.

A001:
Lols, you're making absolute statements, and that practice is frowned upon in science.

Even those renowned scientists you mentioned seldom made absolute statements.

Then, don't rely on science to confirm God as you see it/he/she exists unless you're ready to be disappointed many times.

Over the years, I've also seen some brilliant approaches to God, but I've refrained from sticking with anyone because they might be disproven by scientists sooner or later and because I don't want to delve into a religion.

I prefer to be reading various books and be gathering knowledge here and there and be learning and relearning some things with time than holding onto fixed beliefs or dogmas that don't make one to grow and evolve.

Then, it always good to check the limitations of some theories and laws you think you know so you don't end up taking them as absolute.

Ok.

You don't accept scientific theories because they aren't absolutes. Then don't accept any theories even those of Otem because they aren't absolutes too.

A001:
Lols, this guy is funny. Is it a manned mission? Funny guy

Many missions have been sent to various planets in just our solar system (there are more than trillions of solar systems in the universe).

Not a single one of these missions is manned, and JWST only became operational some months ago.

You're approaching science as a religion. There's nothing like absolute truth in science. Lols.

Science changes rapidly, and saying life only exists on Earth with certainty is laughable.

Even the best astrophysicists and astronomers will never utter such a statement.

Only a layman would.

Stop coming too low.

As it stands now, right now in the world of astronomy no other planet holds life. Till that's disputed it remains that standard.

If you are asked, are there proven life forms any where in the universe? Your answer will be an emphatic 'NO'unless you want to deceive people (or perhaps yourself).

A001:
You're taking theoretical ideas literally. You can't use a tiny dot (earth) on just one galaxy out of the hundreds of billions of galaxies as a sample size and make absolute statements.

That's flawed.

Only gravity and the limit of speed of light are universal based on the mathematics and observational data from astronomy.

The rest were mainly obtained via extrapolation and theoretical modeling done with computers.

Particles still smaller than quantum particles can still be discovered in the future so no scientists will tell you all objects in the universe are made of quantum particles.

That's absolute, and scientists hardly make such statements.

The best they'd say is, "all objects in the universe seem to be made up of quantum particles".

Particles behaving the same way across the universe is your own view. All these are absolute statements, and scientists rarely make such.

When extrapolating theories established based on conditions on earth to the whole universe, scientists use the world seem, appear a lot (you can confirm that yourself). This is because they know the theories can still be disproven or modified with more discoveries.

Don't take theoretical ideas literally without paying attention to those words.

Hahaha

You are such an interesting fellow.

You are the physicist not me. Those are the theories that gave you the knowledge you have not mine.

You claim to stand for philosophy only when it suits you. See how you threw away works down by Einstein, Planc, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Fermi, etc without any scientific rebuttal away into the trash bin of local argument just to hold your false opinion.

This is sad for science and scientist here that look up to you.

I respect your knowledge and so I can't believe you will come this low. Please don't do this. Thanks.

A001:
Says who? Life has only been discovered on Earth. We don't know with certainty that life only exists on Earth.

How many planets have scientists even been to other than Earth? None.

It's irrational to think out of the hundreds of billions of galaxies discovered, life only exists on a tiny spot in the Milky Way galaxy, just one galaxy.

That doesn't make sense.

The possibility of the existence of life on other planets and galaxies is high.

You are not current.

There's a rover in Mars as we speak. Voyager 1and 2 has toured the entire solar system. Also the JWST you mentioned has the capacity to detect life signatures and forms even in other galaxies.

In a billion solar systems with X10 number of planets, only earth has life. Not even microbes in other planetary systems.

That's a probability of 0.1*10^-10

You call that high?

A001:
Who told you the whole Universe reflects the same natural laws? The chemistry and biology are the same ke? Says who? Lols

There are many parts of the Universe that scientists will never be able to explore because of the astronomically large distances from Earth. These parts are called the unobservable universe.

No one knows the laws of nature operational in those regions. Lols, Chemistry and Biology are the same ke? Says who?

Even in the observable Universe, scientists have only explored a small segment. Most parts are still unexplored because the Universe is unimaginably big, and it takes billions of dollars to build telescopes and organize missions to explore them.

Also, these telescopes and missions take time to be developed.

It cost around $10 billion to build the James Webb Space Telescope and close to 30 years. Just one telescope.

Other than the universal limit of speed of light, scientists don't know the physical laws in most parts of the Universe, not to talk of the entire cosmos.

The farthest humans have gone in space is the moon. We still have a long way to go.

Even the International Space Station (ISS) is in Earth's low orbit, not extrasolar.

Everything depends on harnessing the speed of light. Without it, we can't explore other planets physically without using robots that can never be as intelligent as humans.

I knew you would come to this. What you don't get is that if the laws of the observable universe are same, taking it as our sample size, them we can conclude that the laws of the entire universe will still be same. You can't dispute this, remember you are speaking as a scientist.

Now answer the following questions, if your answers are yes then I am right- all natural laws are the same.

1. Does gravity (curvature of space-time) exist accross the universe?

2. Are all objects in the universe made of quantum particles?

3. Do those particles behave the same accross the universe?

4. Is the speed of light constant accross the universe?

Does TSTV show PL?

@A001

Do you know that life only exists on earth accross the entire universe?

A001:
Or designers. We don't know for sure, hence agnosticism.

If there are designers then the universe will not reflect same natural laws. There will be no order.

In the universe, the entire cosmos, the physical laws are same, also the chemistry and biology are the same. All the laws are interrelated and intertwined.

If we accept that there is design, it has to be one designer. No argument on that.

Tataffo:
That begs the question how did God come into existence,was he created too?

Your question is based on the assumption that he is God. God therefore cannot be created. If he was created then he is not God.

Tataffo:
Hmmmm,This is not rational enough,lol....

The point in the snapshot is that if nature exists as something then something must always be in existence to create other 'somethings'.

If you look at it carefully with my own view, you will see that they cannot escape the concept of divine creation.

The 'energy' that was the beginning of the universe is God.

If the universe is orderly and complex then it was designed.

If it was designed then it has a designer.

If there's a designer then he has a purpose.

If there's no propose then why are we chatting?

Rational thought will always have a rational beginning and a rational end, like deriving a formulae.

Melvyn11:
They will just counter this by telling you God will also need a creator. Religious argument is the topic I dislike the most on nairaland because it's pointless.

My answer is already in the bolded. If he is God as claimed by the questioner then he does not have a creator. The reason he is God is because of that singular statement.

The concept of creation by God is the only rational thought that explains how the universe began.

A001:
God has a person is a very limited entity. A person, male or female?

A female God is more rational than a male God because mothers create and nurture.

Anyway, I've read many philosophies on God, but the approach of Otem and his people is still the deepest and most rational I've come across though it's extremely complex.

Still, I only accept what is true what has been proven to be true. In the absence of such proof, I remain an agnostic.

A person does not necessarily have to termed either male or female.

A person is just an intelligent being.

I don't rationalise this complex world being created without a designer. Randomness is an end not a beginning. So says entropy. So the facts are that

1. Whatever is complex eg the universe, there must be a designer

2. Whatever is designed has a purpose

3. A designer must be intelligent and purposeful

A001:
I understand your view, but I don't agree with it.

Some people say God is Nothing or Nothing is God or "God is Existence" as Otem says. I don't agree with them too as an agnostic because God is an ambiguous word with hundreds of meaning.

Ok. I respect your opinion.

For my theory of creation to make any meaning then God has to be a person that is a defined entity. Something we cannot do.

oyatz:
Election took place in 176,000 polling units across Nigeria.

If the Petitioner are able to prove with EVIDENCE that there were irregularities in some polling units, the Tribunal may cancel the results of such polling units, deduct the results from the total results and check the remaining results;

1) If after such deductions, the votes of Peter Obi is the highest and he secure 25% in 25 States ,he will be declared winner.

2) If after deductions of such polling units, Tinubu still maintain the highest votes and 25% across 29 States, he will remain the winner.



*Note: The APC are also preparing cross petition to challenge the results credited to the Labour party in the S/East.

If the irregularities were perpetuated by the defendant, and the petitioner had sought for relief of being declared the winner, the court will grant the relief if there is evidence.

A001:
Nothing means Void or Vacuum in that sense, and nothing isn't splitting into a particle-antiparticle pair but is generating the pair.

Philosophers and physicists have said many things about Nothing.

The one I found most profound is what Otem and his people said about Nothing and the Beginning in his book:

"Everything has always existed since infinity, but everything was held together by a Force (Metosh), which is a very great source of energy. The Mass, the Water, the Light, the Substance, the Plant, the coagulation of
consciousness (souls) called Mirosh(God) and every other thing were held together by a great Force. If I or any of my siblings had been alive to witness their coexistence before the first big bang which pulled them apart, we would not have seen anything.

We would then conclude after the first big bang that everything came into existence by the explosion of Nothing. This is so because
everything came into existence from the things which exist but cannot be seen. "

The highlighted gives one a solid argument against Nothing. But then, it's more reasonable to believe that a Vacuum existed before the Big Bang than to believe something existed since it has been proven empirically that something can arise out of nothing.

Matter as we know it hasn't always existed, especially before the Big Bang.

I am a creationist and so have my own beliefs apart from whatever Otem or anyone suggests.

God created the universe from nothing. I have just proved that 'nothing' is not nothing using the particulate theory of matter. If an electron collides with a positron they are annihilated (disappear) and produce energy.

If that is possible then God can create matter from nothing by simply splitting 'nothing' via energy fission.

You are a physicist and should understand my point which is empirically proven.

Kokane heard 'something soft' and instantly forgot Nelson's goal.

A001:
You're just commenting on issues ignorantly. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy that deals with the origin and development of the universe.

It's one of the many fields in Physics.

It's the business of people like Lawrence Krauss who is an expert in cosmology.

Quantum physics deals with the study of particles and phenomena in the subatomic or quantum realm and is a branch of Physics, not metaphysics.

Everything is special about physicists as they're some of the most intelligent people on the planet. When talking about the nature of the Universe including its beginning, I consider the views of physicists more seriously than your own view as a layman.

Also, I consider the view of philosophers like Socrates, Lao Tzu, Otem, and past humans like Atum (who taught the ancient Egyptians how to build those wondrous pyramids) more seriously than the view of a person that doesn't know jack about Physics or what's called cosmology or quantum physics.

As said earlier, Nothing is a fascinating concept that has a lot of depth. Unless you know with certainty what existed before the Big Bang, it'd be foolish to dismiss Nothing or Vacuum.

In science nothing is actually 'something'.

It's like zero in mathematics. It means something.

A particle and it anti particle can collide and annihilate each other to become nothing. That nothing can also split into two (particle and anti-particle).

Pat081:
13 Million voters Rejected him
25 states Rejected him.
His State of Origin Osun Rejected him.
The State he built Lagos Rejected him.
Abuja (Seat of Power) Rejected him.

His VP lost his state - Borno.
His party chairman lost his state - Nasarawa.
The DG of his campaign lost his state - Plateau.
The President who is the leader of his party lost his state - Katsina.
His main henchman El-Rufai lost Kaduna.
He lost Kano.

*INEC forced him on Nigerians* 🤷🏽‍♂️ lnec chairman will never have peace

The states he believed were his stronghold that he did not plan to rig, he lost.

Rebelutionary:
Lol...i no fit laugh you abeg! Im sorry but you obviously know nothing about the law...even husband and wife fight no dey straightforward as you are saying it.

See ehn with it comes to elections in Nigeria ehn except in the case of technicalities, the petitioner is ALWAYS at a huge disadvantage. Go and ask Buhari/Atiku. LP will have to prove that whatever irregularities they find SUBSTANTIALY IMPUGN the integrity of the election to warrant a cancellation. And that my brother is i dare say an impossible nut to crack.

Simply put there were elections in 170k plus Polling units right?. They will have to prove that the irregularities affects in no marginal way the final outcome of the election. The question is can you confidently say there were issues/irregularities in 20k Polling Units? No abi? What of 10k? What of 5K? Ur eye don dey clear abi?

The bolded is what I am saying.

There is even the possibility of ordering a recount? I am quite confident o.

helinues:


The key thing in court cases is Affidavit... All your evidence must be in your affidavits which you must swear an oath on cos you could be punished for lying under oath.

Which evidence both LP and Pdp want to present at the court when they don't have polling agents in reasonable number of polling units. How would you claim they rigged you in some particular area when you knew you don't have agents to be the witness to testify at court.

President elect, his Excellency Bola Tinubu already set up a reconciliation committee in other to move Nigeria forward, not that he is not sure of his victory.

Your witness can also be the electorates, or the police person stationed in those units and their ballot papers and original result sheets are their statement of evidence.

LP has requested to the Tribunal that those documents be given to them by INEC. Something the court has granted. Once those documents are scrutinized and any form of manipulation is observed, the court will grant the petition of the plaintiff.

We all know that the results called by INEC are fraudulent. That will settle the whole case and APC will be disqualified.

Peter Obi will be president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.