₦airaland Forum

Arostar2023:
People that depend on "miracles" and lucks seldom go far in life. Great nations and institutions are not built by luck, but by deliberate and consistent excellent acts and the resulting good results. Our girls have worked hard and got a win. They deserved to be celebrated...but having to consistently expect a miracle is no hardwork. Brazilians of old, for example , didn't win games by luck, but by hardwork and excellence.

Where did the op imply we should "consistently expect a miracle"?

In football, professional footballers know that hardwork coupled with some element of luck is what is needed to win a game of football. Of course you won't win if you depend only luck. The same also applies if you depend only on hardwork because what will happen in a game of football isn't easily predictable.

A balance of the two, hardwork and the expectations that things go in ones favour, luck, is what's required to succeed in football and in other areas of life

Katcall:
can one use testimonial in place of certificate

No

trilacos:
Send your sister or nephew to the school, you will get your proof since that's what you are looking for. You think people will just wake up one day and be carrying false rumour.

If you have sense at all,you should know that the responsibility for providing proof lies with the person that made the claim.

PrincessDiana:
While some people might agree with you, I believe it is all shades of wrong for a school to claim they graduate you without handing over your certificate immediately.
This is the way things are done in this country. Schools (both public and private), will hold convocation ceremonies without handing over certificates on that day. They know that students will likely revolt any arbitrary fees/cost imposed at that stage, so they just hand you a piece of nonsensical paper and wait at the student admin for each student to come slug it out.

This is one of the things the student union is for. But nobody seems to understand their duties anywhere in Nigeria.
Until the citizens understand how important it is for them to complain as a group, nothing will change anywhere.

The standard practice is to issue statement of results first before the original ,certificate which usually takes time to prepare.

They're lots of graduates in this country who haven't gone to collect their certificates years after graduating and this is at a very huge cost to the universities who have to spend extra money in keeping it safe for them.

So, why should the universities be the ones to bear the cost of their ex-students neglecting their own certificates?

trilacos:
no, it's not a penalty,they just want to charge that outrageous amount.

Where's your proof?

mixitv:
Fellow Nairalanders,

I came across a disturbing report making the rounds – Ekiti State University (EKSU) is allegedly charging ₦125,000 for graduates to collect their original certificates. Let that sink in: not for a new degree, not for a masterclass or skill acquisition, but just to collect the one thing you worked hard for – your own certificate.

This raises serious questions:

1. What exactly are students paying for?
EKSU students pay tuition, development fees, examination fees, departmental fees, and even convocation fees. So why should there be another ₦125k hurdle for a document that should be part of the graduation process?

2. Is this legal or just pure extortion?
A university is a public institution. Unless there's a transparent, Senate-approved reason for such a fee (like printing on gold or shipping to Mars), ₦125,000 feels more like extortion than administration.

3. How does this compare to other universities?
Many federal and state universities charge between ₦5,000 to ₦20,000 for certificate collection. Even private universities with far higher tuition rarely go beyond ₦50,000. Why is EKSU this expensive?

4. What about the struggling graduates?
In a country with mass unemployment and inflation, this charge is not only unfair – it’s insensitive. Imagine a graduate who's yet to secure a job, now being asked to pay that much just to prove they graduated.

5. Accountability matters
If EKSU truly needs funds, they should publish a breakdown of the certificate production cost and make it public. Otherwise, it looks like a means to exploit thousands of students and their parents.

Final Thoughts:
Education is a right, not a luxury. The certificate is a symbol of academic achievement, not a luxury item. If graduates can't even access it without breaking the bank, what’s the point of the whole process?

Let’s speak up before other institutions copy this model. We must demand fairness, transparency, and respect for students who already sacrificed years and finances to earn their degrees.

What are your thoughts? Are you an EKSU student or alum who’s been affected? Drop your experiences.

The 125k may include the penalty for not collecting it on time , the yearly cost for keeping it safe and other sundry charges .

Most states university in Nigeria have placed a penalty for not collecting your certificate on time . If you failed to collect your certificate after 10 years be sure that you be required to pay close to that amount or even more.

So, find out first why they're charging that amount before castigating the university.

Any Christian preacher who tells you God's blessings alone, and not the choices you make in life are the reasons you are rich wants to steal from you through tithes and offerings. They want to put themselves in a powerful position in your mind where you have no choice but to share your wealth with them



Yes, it's God blessing according to them,, and since they claim to be representing the same God, who are you not to give to them when they request from you?

And it's even worse, when you accept from the same people you're poor because of an imaginary curse. You seal your fate if you accept such falsehood as you will struggle forever to make it in life. No prayer or deliverance from poverty will be of any help.

The choices will make in life ,which either leads to failure or success , springs from the ideas or beliefs we hold strongly in our minds.

("As a man thinks in his heart" (mind)

So, if you fully accept you're under a curse for being poor and not because of what you're doing or not, you have sown a seed of poverty in your mind that will certainly germinate and become your reality, making you do and say things from time to time that will keep you in perpetual poverty, and not able to rise above the situation no matter how hard you try. "You reap what you sow" both in thoughts and in actions. So, don't allow anyone sow a negative seed of poverty in your mind. You will suffer for it if you do. The poverty will not come from any actual curses but from the false beliefs you're holding in your mind that you're under a curse.

Poverty is not a good thing and one shouldn't celebrate it or find comfort in it. One can always find things to do to live life comfortably. It's just a matter of knowing what to do based on money making ideas you can generate in your mind

The preacher who says you are rich because his God has blessed you, is actually setting you up for failure. Life is ups and downs,and since you have accepted your wealth is from his God, the day you experience some form of misfortune in business or any series of bad luck, you will start to think some curses from what you did in the past are the reasons they are happening. And if you cannot shake the thoughts of curses from your mind, you certainly are one your way to experiencing poverty because of what you believe

Splendour99:
Brother, I am saying that there is a spiritual connotation to the rainbow, that God is the one that creates the rainbow every time you see it, as a visible token of the covenant which He made with Noah and every living creature after him not to destroy the entire world again with water, as He did to the people in Noah's day. It is not a phenomenon that just occurs naturally, and at the perfect conditions, and without meaning, as scientists would have lovedus believe. This is my exact point.

You didn't take your time to read my reply. I said Genesis did not state that God created the rainbow after the flood, but only mentioned that its appearance in the sky whenever it does is symbolic of God's faithfulness. The principles which governs the formation and appearance of the rainbow represents natural laws which has been operational since the beginning of time. So, if you believe God created the world and everything in it which also includes natural laws, but at the same time believe rainbows only started appearing after the flood, you're contradicting your God ,and not only calling him a liar but also affirming he didn't create the world.

Yes, because the conditions which causes rainbows to appear in the sky automatically have been always been there prior to Noah's Ark. Both the sun and water droplets have been in existence before Noah.So, it doesn't need God to intervene to cause it to happen each time. It manifest by itself without fail once the conditions are met. You can argue that God created it at first. I will not argue against that for the sake of this conversation, but to declare God is still creating it each time it appears till this very time, is propagating falsehood

But if you do not believe that Noah's flood really happened, you would believe these scientists and think there is no meaning to the rainbow, and that nature has a mind and power of its own.

Have a great day.

Believing in Noah's story is not the main issue here, but whether God has created a rainbow whenever it appears or did after Noah's flood. I said no. There's even a scientific experiment you can conduct in your bedroom to understand how rainbows are formed. Science is based on evidence not belief and it's not disputing God. Its interest lies elsewhere.

There's no where in the Bible passage below where it's mentioned that God created rainbow for the first time after the flood or that he's the one creating it each time it appears in the sky. So one wonders which Bible most of you Christians have been reading, especially the person who created this thread. "I have set my rainbow" doesn't translate to creating it for the first time. It means using or marking something that has already been in existence as a sign for something, the covenant.. The original Hebrew text from which the passage is translated from has no word that refers to creating something. I"have set my rainbow" The use of the personal pronoun, "my" refers to something already in existence as at the time the statement was made. You cannot describe a thing as my own if it's not already there or already owned it. If the passage is reading "I have set a rainbow" then it's correct to say it was created for the first time after the flood. Synonyms for ,set as used in that passage are, designate, name assign etc. So in other words, you can also translate the passage to , "I have named, designate, or marked my rainbow as" ......

Splendour99:
What is the truth? Can scientists explain the origin and diversity of life, the origin and complexity of the earth? They come up with things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. And you want me to put my belief in their flawed, nonsensical theories? Study the design and anatomy of the human body and tell me where it came from.

Please focus on the rainbow and tell me how the scientific explanation for their formation and appearances in the sky is flawed or nonsensical.

You don't know that fallen men are proud and liars by nature and hate God's revealed truth as the Creator and Sustainer of this world.yourself.

Who are the fallen men and haters of God's truth?
.

So we should deny that Noah's flood actually happened and that the rainbow is just a natural phenomenon that has been in existence for millions of years?

The story shouldn't be interpreted literally. It's an allegory. Genesis never declared that the rainbow was invented for the first time after the flood,but that it serve as symbol for God's faithfulness. The original Hebrew text from which the story was translated from didn't contain any verb which suggest the creation of a rainbow after the flood.

Well, good luck with your worldly wisdom and your belief in your scientists. You went to school but you cannot think for yourself.

I don't believe in scientist. I follow the science and always test if the information or conclusion which they have presented is supported by evidence before accepting it. And this means, I'm able to think for myself.

JovialJune:
So we should believe science that came into existence couple of years ago, something that has been in existence before man was gifted the knowledge of what the world is today

Very funny.

I didn't ask you to believe science. I said the conditions for the formation and appearances of rainbows in the sky are not always met hence you don't always see them.

I expected you to either ask for the conditions or investigate it yourself so that you can easily predict accurately when next a rainbow will appear in front of you.

Science doesn't ask you to believe anything. The truths it present to you are based on what is observed happening in the world around you.

Splendour99:
You are the one to be pitied if you follow scientists blindly. Scientists don't have all the answers. Many of their theories are nonsensical and outright lies - case in point, evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis - which all sound foolish and ludicrous to the thinking man.

You're actually talking to yourself. Science has it limitations, no doubt about that, but once it knows something very well, it knows it more than how it's described in your religious text

If you had a proper scientific education, you would have
known that rainbows have been appearing in the sky before your Bible said they did. Noah's flood is an allegory that no one should interpret literally.

In your ignorance, you're afraid to know the truth so you don't lose your faith, but the irony is that your Bible had lamented that " my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"

KingCold:
And Nigeria's a very religious country, I guess that's why you guys need to offload that guilt every Sunday.. It's tricky, religious dogma says it's wrong, and the bible says sex before marriage is also wrong.. and not everybody wanna get married or some people find it hard to find women.. So what happens in that scenario? 🤷‍♂️

As for off-loading the guilt on Sundays, I'm not in a position to do that . I don't go to church. I'm irreligious.

I didn't advise against masturbation. Adults, who can exercise some form of self control , are healthy and eating well, are free to do whatever they like with bodies and bear the consequences.

But kids, and young person needing focus to build their lives shouldn't start it at all. They could easily get addicted to it, and we all know that any kind of addiction, apart from it being difficult to break, isn't good for one's mental health

Masturbation is neither good nor bad.

It's good when used temporarily to relieve sexual tension or to get a sample of one's spermatozoa for medical test, but bad when it becomes a permanent alternative to having regular sex.

It's the guilt attached to it in religion that causes religious people to see it as evil.

However, in my opinion,religion or no religion it's not good to be addicted to it especially as a young person.

JovialJune:
So how come rainbow doesn't always form everytime it rains? Or you think sunlight doesn't always reflect in water droplets when and after it rains?

There is a religious meaning attached to it, formed for the very first time as a covenant to Noah.

It doesn't always form because the conditions for their formation are not always met.

The knowledge concerning this was given to you when you did elementary science in JSS or even primary school.

Chai !

So, in this time and age where any kind of knowledge is easily accessible to educate ourselves about the world around us, we still have people in this part of the world who attended schools were, at least ,they did elementary science ,but still believe as true that a rainbow was created for the first time after Noah's flood?

Hei! Hei! What's this now? ehn

Haaa! No,no no, no

Please for God sake,the Bible is a book of faith and not science.

MaxInDHouse:
Jews were defaming the temple with their businesses Yahweh was patient with them but Jesus entered just one day and drove them out using a rope he tied as whip.

Who said Jesus is gentle?

So JW now support the carrying of weapons to fight their enemies?

DeepSight:
I warned you to be careful of any one who will ask you for the meaning of the word "intelligent."

I have learnt the hard way for not listening to you.

He's desperate to cast me in the mold of creationist so he call himself, not me , illiterate believer.

Everyday247:
That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking you for the source explaining your version of "intelligent design". If there were other versions of "Intelligent design" like your own, why can't we find it online?

Because aside from you, I've not heard it anywhere else.

I haven't presented my own version of intelligent design, but described what's observed in nature using words in English.

Are your bodily systems operating intelligently as if created by humans?

Answer yes or no and you know why I have used the phrase

I cannot be arguing for and against evolution which I subscribe to.

There are non creationist scientist who have also like me mentioned the intelligence in natural occuring phenomenon. It doesn't mean they're arguing for what you think.

Everyday247:
Can you post source?

Where did you get all this from?

I can't continue to repeat myself. I already gave examples of what you're asking. Your bodily systems operate intelligently. If you think they don't , forget it.

I'm not arguing for creationism,but highlighting evolutionary marvels that appears purposefully engineered in nature. But creationist are saying they are created by God in a matter of days. I haven't said, so why for God sake you won't allow me to use everyday language , intelligent and design, to describe what's obvious in nature.


I asked you to limit your search to what operate intelligently in nature if you can't do that then get help from chatbot.

This is the last time I will reply you on this matter.

Everyday247:
I looked it up, and it's showing me creationists sites that rejects evolution and the big bang and then aserts an intelligent designer.

Oga, I'm not arguing for an intelligent designer like creationist, and that's why you have been searching for what doesn't concern me.

If it's difficult for you to get what I specify: examples of naturally occurring phenomenon that operate intelligently or have intelligent design not designer, use Chatbot to help you get them.

The meaning of a word is determined by the context it's used. If creationist are using the phrase, intelligent design ,to argue for an intelligent designer for all things and you disagree, please face them not me.

Thank you

Everyday247:
I got all these from wikipedia 👇
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And here's britainnica 👇
Intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design

Check if your definition of intelligent design is the same as what's found online.

You are struggling to understand me. Google for examples of intelligent design in nature and show your results here please.

You have searched for intelligent design argument, what it's, instead of intelligent design

Everyday247:
That's the definition of intelligent design. You need an intelligent designer to get intelligent design.

NO. Provide the source of where you got it from that everything that's labeled intelligent design must have an intelligent designer separate from it

That's not how the definition of "intelligent" in intelligent design works.
You're essentially redefining the definition of intelligent design.

It's not a working but a descriptive term which refers to something which I have explained. So I haven't redefined it. You probably think so because of the people you have listening to.

These biological functions came about through natural processes.

I didn't say they didn't come about through natural process. I said they operate intelligently

The fundamentals assertion of intelligent design is that these biological functions can not occur naturally and requires an intelligent designer.

You didn't complete it. "requires an intelligent designer (GOD) outside of it" That's what the people you have been listening to have educated you with.

But I said it's possible the intelligent designer is something that's an inseparable part of the natural process which resulted in those intelligent systems seen in nature.

First of all, biology textbooks talks about naturally occuring biological things in nature.

Bodily systems which I described are exactly that. I didn't mention anything manmade.

Secondly, it's not textbook knowledge I was asking for. These are things that anybody can just say on a whim. Examples of intelligent design are : Vehicles, Electronic, buildings etc.
They are called "intelligent designs" because they can't occur naturally.

Are you even aware that some of the systems which operates in manmade objects were copied from naturally occurring phenomenon?

If the copies are intelligent design to you, why not the original?

Something that occurs naturally is called natural (or naturally designed if you fancy). while something that can't occur naturally can be called Artificial, Man made, Intelligent design etc

wrong. The natural processes which I earlier described operate intelligently, and I have explained how. If you're blind to the intelligence in those systems, sorry I can no longer continue the discussion with you.

Thank you

Everyday247:
Really?
Because i thought intelligent designs were designed by intelligent designers.

Who tells you that everything described as intelligent design is designed by a separate or external intelligent designer?

Design sometimes refers to the inherent nature of something, and If , for instance, that something can operate independently on its own, we say it has intelligence., like your bodily systems which operate independently and intelligently on their own.


For instance, if your body requires food, it starts to flash images of it on the screen of your mind so you're forced to go looking for it. If it's sex, oh! you will struggle to resist its command as it will continually flash the images of that big breasted girl in your neighborhood you fancy across the screen of mind to excite you sexually so you're forced to go looking for a her or any one who could give it to you or na soapie go end ham o, if not no peace for you o

If it's ill, you know what it does now, it sends you signal so you act before it becomes too late.

So can you kindly tell me the how intelligent design comes about?

For a start, read your biology textbooks, but mind you, science says it doesn't know everything yet. So who am I to tell you how intelligent design in nature came about?

Everyday247:
It looks like you don't understand how language works. What does "intelligent" mean?
What does "designer" mean?

What does the term "intelligent designer" mean?

Are the laws of nature "intelligent" or "sentient"?

If you can call the laws of nature an "intelligent designer", does this mean we can also call the earth a God?

You have misinterpreted me.
Intelligent design is not the same as intelligent designer. Re-read me again. Thank you

plaetton:
I agree that the OP is pointing out limitations to TOE. So are we all.
No one disagrees that there are unknown or yet to be discovered mechanisms in TOE. That's why it continues to be a scientific enquiry: A never ending enquiry.

Is the OP here to merely discuss the limitations to TOE or simply wants Nairalanders to answer nagging questions for him ?

Nairaland is not a science academy.

You still never get my point .
You keep insisting that I answer his question.

Answer his question or what?

If the OP is sincere about getting his answers, I assure you that he is resourceful enough to find it.

It's your responsibility what you want to do on this thread. Nobody is forcing you. You might as well abandon it if you no longer want to participate.

plaetton:
I don't know where you get your own facts.
Who said that their flight project was not grounded of science?
You seem to making up your own stuff as you go.
I think you're making these erroneous arguments from from a false premise.
I never stated that one had to be grounded in science to challenge a scientific idea. No.
What I continue to state is you must argue or refute a scientific idea with science( whether you're a scientist or not).

Saying that something shows evidence of design is an opinion, but it not a scientific argument.

The Wright brothers were not the first to attempt controlled flight, neither did they succeed at first try.
It was a trial and error, with adjustments in the wings ,the flaps, etc.
Indeed, there were plenty of skeptics who didn't think they would achieve controlled flight.

The idea of controlled flight did not originate from the Wright brothers. That idea ,that dream had been for thousands of years.

Oh my God. I didn't say their invention wasn't grounded in science, I said mainstream scientist prior to the time they succeeded in flying regarded their project as scientifically impossible.

It was only after they succeeded we now then knew the science behind it

I will say this again, you don't take time to read before replying. I won't accuse you of lacking in comprehension but say you are more focused in looking for fault where there's none and so keep misrepresenting me.

Talking of refuting science with science, the op hasn't refuted or rejected TOE like religious fanatics . He already demonstrated a fair understanding of the theory and highlighted the gaps in it and sought for answers from those of you who claim to understand it better. That's all

So why using argument used against religious fanatics who completely reject TOE for someone who hasn't?

DeepSight:
Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

All of the atheist who think intelligent design is for idiots have been miseducate about it by religious people who often use it as proof for their gods. Those are the people they have been listening to, and so don't know it themselves.

Once you mention intelligent design, the immediate and unthinking response is , "who created the designer? LOL

plaetton:
We are 100% in agreement here.
Questions and more questions and more questions is what has gotten us this far in scientific achievements.

But if someone comes here and says if I cannot explain to him or her why Uranus has a retrograde orbit, then all the theories of Gravitational are half truths.
I would gently ask the person to go and study the subject itself.
As you can see, the person asking the question is not sincere about wanting to know the answer.

please on focus on the main thing, TOE so you stop arguing deceptively to win an argument.

Your comparison is inappropriate. The op is highlitimg real issues , the limitations, within TOE and seeking for answers. Instead of focusing on that to provide relevant answers, you're all over the place deflecting to an imaginary and not relevant object, Uranus ,together with gravitational theories.

Sincerity of him not wanting to know the answer shouldn't stop you. For the sake of others like myself following the thread, please provide the answers

Thanks in advance

Everyday247:
There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

If you know it very well, what's stopping you from explaining it yourself. I think you also have the problem you have accused him of having, but want to lie to yourself that you know it better.

Everyday247:
The dude's lowkey trying to gently force intelligent design into science through the back door.

What do you even know about intelligent design other the misconstrue version used by religious people to miseducate people like you who don't bother to investigate things themselves?

Unlike others ,I don't accept there's a separate designer existing somewhere in an invisible plane.

For me, the designer is in the designed object. It's inseparable from it. Science calls it the force of nature, certain religion have personified it as God. They are both saying the same thing but expressing it differently.