₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
All this ramble is useless.
Simple question is. Is liquid/solid oxygen a different element from gaseous?
I kept on telling you they are all oxygen but in different forms but it seems you like hearing yourself talk(or in this case, hearing yourself type)

Hehehe
You have changed the goalpost. SMH

Stick to the original question you asked and stop the pretences.You 're now asking of difference in element and no longer sameness due to quality



You asked, "is it not the same oxygen?
And I have answered that

Oxygen in the atmosphere, gas, is the same as any other, but not exactly the same due to quality differences.

If you find it hard to understand this very easy to understand explanation, then sorry,I can't help you.

jaephoenix:
Question is. Is it not the same oxygen? (albeit different forms)

I have answered you correctly, but you refused to accept my answer and ,that's why we're here.

It's the same Oxygen but not exactly the same kind due to quality differences. One is colourless, tasteless and not visible, while the other forms aren't.

Before I reacted to your comments on this thread,,I saw that you were only focused on proving that Oxygen can be seen with the images you provided of both the liquid and solid forms .You were never concerned about discussing the differences and it was obvious you were conflating the different forms as exactly the same

But when I finally quoted you, I highlighted the difference in quality , and made it clear at the end they're not exactly the same kind of Oxygen.

It was after my explanation, you asked me the question," if it's not the same oxygen"

I have given your the correct answer. If you're rejecting it then please explain how Oxygen in the atmosphere, gas, is exactly the same as the other forms liquid and solid .

The key phrase here is ," exactly the same"

So, please make sure you prove that they're exactly the same in quality .
Thank you

jaephoenix:
So i said the Blue oxygen is the liquid form and that it is the same oxygen but in a different form, how does it negate my point?

Haba! You questioned what I said and not that you made the point you're making now.

You were the one who asked me if it's not the same oxygen after I replied with the water and Ice analogy to show the difference between the liquid and the solid form of oxygen which I said is colourless and not visible to the naked eye.
Can you see Oxygen as gas in the atmosphere with your naked eyes? Certainly not,and that's why they're not the same kind.

I don't understand what you me want to do here.

Do you want me to a accept that it's possible to see oxygen existing as gas because you can see the liquid one? Yes or no

Dangote refinery will roll out petrol by September and sell above a thousand naira with the excuse it's imported crude. If people complain ,which is expected, the government will beg us to be patient and assure us that by October the price will go down substantially.

But by October when the refinery starts to refine local crude , the price will only reduce to a thousand naira or a fraction thereof with Ignorant Nigerians accepting and celebrating it without
complaining because of the hardship they have gone though in the previous month of September when it was sold over 1,k.

I believe the issue of pricing is what has been delaying the company from rolling out petrol The government is afraid of what will happen if Dangote sells above 1k. It will results in serious inflation. Dangote is a ruthless business man who only cares about profit.

"Dangote, Dangote, Dangote still dey find momi" oya

I just hope what I imagined above doesn't materializes,if not it won't be easy.

Look,

jaephoenix:
That is the point I'm making, oga

No. You didn't make any point. You're just making that now.

jaephoenix:
The form/state is different but substance is the same. Thats basically my point. What's your point?

Why then did you challenge me when I said the same thing or have you forgotten so soon how it all started ?

Right from the very begining till now, I have been insisting that since the forms aren't the same they're not exactly the same kind of Oxygen.Liquid oxygen is not the same as Oxygen in gas form. You said no. that they're the same, and that's the reason we got here and now you want to deny your own words?

Go back and read from the begining

Lucifyre:
Both of you are basically on the same page here.

We aren't. The form is not the same as the substance .

The same Oxygen but not exactly the same kind of Oxygen. One is gas, the other is liquid

jaephoenix:
How am I creating confusion?

I'm not talking of the substance or element but the different forms it can take.

The substance is not the same thing as the form, but you insist there's no difference.

jaephoenix:
No, but then its the same agent in different forms. If I wear different clothes everyday it doesn't mean I have changed. Its the same old me

So, what have I been saying?

I said it's the same thing but in different forms. Liquid and solid is not the same please

You're trying to create confusion when you already understood what I meant.

You and the cloth are not the same. So what are you talking about?

jaephoenix:
So is ice not water again? If you allow ice at room temperature, what does it become?

Please don't create confusion. It's the same water but no the same form. Haba!

If you ask your patients to take with water,do you expect them to take ice blocks because it's the same water?

Aemmyjah:
By artificial process right?

Here in Akwa Ibom, people can bake blood and sell and it looks like meat by apperance and by taste.

When we turn water into ice blocks using a fridge,which is artificial process, it doesn't mean the water has become artificial. It's still the same water. If the ice thaws, you get back the same water. It's the same with liquified Oxygen.
You don't understand what you read from chatbot.

I said, you were very correct when you declared that Oxygen is gas which is colourless and invisible to the naked eyes, but I further informed you that when it's subjected to "abnormal pressures" it changes into liquid oxygen . The full description of the process is what you got from chatbot .

So, what are you celebrating here?

LordReed:
You are truly stupid. Did you not see low temperature there? Airhead.

The main process has been summarized for him already; ,Extreme temperature is the main thing that liquefies Oxygen gotten from the atmosphere.

He should have asked the right question to know more. He didn't do that due to ego,but instead he ran to chatbot where he got a more detailed explanation of the same thing already explained,and concluded without understanding what he read that liquified Oxygen is artificial because he saw the expression "artificial process" Just imagine..

Aemmyjah:
At normal st

Wait

Oxygen is visible? Yes or No

When you're ready to be serious, quote me again.

I already answered your previous question and I think that's enough

jaephoenix:
The Blue oxygen is the liquid or solid form. Does it mean its no more oxygen?

The same Oxygen ,but no more in its primary form ,gas which is colourless and not seen. That's the difference .

The same thing like water and ice

Aemmyjah:
Lol
You don't know anything about oxygen

. O boy,Please don't include me in your argument with others. I only responded to what you asked about oxygen and it wasn't meant to criticize you in any way. So I don't understand why you're now responding this way. It appears you're mistaking me for another person. Check very well. This is triplechoice.

Ok. Please tell me what I don't know about oxygen?

Aemmyjah:
And that it is invisible to the human eyes right?

I don't understand why you're asking me this? Oxygen in the atmosphere is not visible to the human eyes. What's seen as blue Oxygen is only found in a places of abnormal temperature and pressures.

jaephoenix:
Yeah. But our theist friends here says one can't see oxygen, when it has different forms that can be seen

The truth is that Oxygen is colourless. What we see as blue Oxygen is only found in abnormal temperature and pressures. It's like water. It's colourless but as solid Ice we can describe it as white.

Oxygen in the atmosphere is never seen because it's colourless.

Aemmyjah:
Water can be gaseous
Liquid
Solid



Oxygen in it's natural state is 💯 gas and invisible to the human eye

Is bubble oxygen?

You misunderstood me. You're correct that Oxygen is gas and I affirmed that.

jaephoenix:
How?
Oxygen exists in many forms. There are liquid, solid and gaseous forms. Here's their pix
At this point, I have to wonder whether you ever went to school

Oxygen is gas. The other forms of oxygen you have mentioned is due to certain conditions acting on it to turn it into either solid or liquid.

Aemmyjah:
😂
Oxygen in solid and liquid forms?

You're not serious o
Oxygen or O2 is a gas
Oxygen is invisible to the e human eye
Is bubble an oxygen then?

You're correct to say oxygen is gas,but it can be solidified and liquefied and when that happens you see it.

jaephoenix:
How can it be cognitive bias when evolution is facts? Is creationism credible?

I haven't disputed evolution nor accepted creationism as credible . I only expressed my opinion about what I think is the cause why some persons here assume wrongly about others. I said they don't know enough but
think they do about the next person before passing judgement. That is cognitive bias.

And also that the habit of labelling others as this or that is a lazy way of winning an argument. Both the theist and atheist are guilty of all of these.

Wilgrea7:
Hello again everyone.

I've noticed something pitifully embarrassing here on this platform, when it comes to discourse with theists. And that is what atheism is, or what an atheist is supposed to believe.

It's come up more times than I can remember, where someone assumes just because someone doesn't believe in a god, then they must "believe in" evolution, or the big bang or that everything came from nothing and so on. .

The aim of this post is to clarify exactly what atheism is, and what atheists believe. So please read closely.

So what is atheism? and what do atheists believe?

Simply put, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in a god.Atheists do not believe in a god.

Belief in things like evolution and the big bang are NOT prerequisites to atheism. Please understand this.

A person can be an atheist, and still not accept evolution, or the big bang. The only prerequisite for being an atheist, is the lack of belief in a god That's all there is to it.

Atheists can have other beliefs not related to a god, but they are not prerequisites for atheism, nor are the beliefs a definition of atheism.

Please try to understand this. So next time you see someone say "atheists believe in X or Y". Kindly show them this thread.

I will say it again. The only prerequisite for atheism, is the lack of belief in a god.

Thank you for your attention. Contributions and rebuttals as always are welcome.

@ the bolded ,atheists, (not all of them),also assume they know what every non atheist should believe or what every religion in the world teaches,,and it's "pitifully embarrassing" too seeing them passing wrong judgement on others who don't share in their non belief or challenges them on something they have said. To them, if you reject or question evolution theory then you're a gullible theist who believes in creationism .

In my opinion, the behaviour is fueled both by cognitive bias and the desperation to win an argument using under hand tactics. If it's the later, then no amount of education can stop the person. It's the lazy man's method of winning an argument without much sweat.

You will observe that those who label you a believer in evolution theory do so by highlighting its limitations while ignoring what has been proven to be true about it in order to dismiss it as mere theory and then call you ignorant and stupid for subscribing to it It's the same treatment they have received from atheist who question their sanity for accepting creationism is what they want to revenge.

I have experienced the worst from some atheist here who are very quick to assume that anyone challenging them or saying something in support of what they rejected must have done so because they believe in a God.


The education should be for everyone, me included.

Don't be so quick to assume about the next person or about anything else until you can be sure to some extent. If you do ,it shows you're not thinking but just reacting based on what your learning or past experience have taught you. We haven't experienced it all or learnt everything.

BTW your definition for atheism is incomplete. An atheist is not only the person who doesn't believe in a God but who also don't subscribe to the supernatural Any atheist subscribing to the supernatural is confused in my opinion.

Zionmdde:
And am telling you that if the pastor said the water can only work when you mix it with faith You cannot ascertain if faith was there and therefore you cannot ascertain that you have fulfilled the requirements
Or how will you prove that that is fraud

. But no evidence the pastor has said any of the above about mixing it with your faith before it can work. Instead he has made his followers believe that he has infused it with his own faith by praying over it. So, if it doesn't work, he should be held responsible. It's his own faith which cannot be "ascertain" he is selling to the public, and that's why it's fraud. If it's the individual's faith, then he should simply direct his members to pray over any drinkable water and use it.

So if a pastor said if you give you will receive a thousand folds and you give and nothing happens, will you will sue him for deception?

Please direct this question to those
foolish enough to hand over their money to a pastor for it to be doubled.

Even hospitals are not sued when patients die after assurance of treatment

Hospitals don't give assurance of treatment that cannot fail. Hospitals aren't offering magical or supernatural cures that's not expected to fail.

And they aren't sued because everyone understands from past experiences that there are no guarantee treatment anywhere that cannot fail sometimes . When treatment fails there's usually an explanation why it has failed which we all accept, and because of that no hospital or doctor is sued. Negligence is what can lead to suing.

Please to use what I explained above to support the pastor. Faith healing is not the same as orthodox medicine used in hospitals. The former has to do with God and not infallible humans.

Quest7777:
Is the Bible the Constitution of Nigeria?
The issue here is Legality & not Religiousity/Morality.

The ingredients of the so called Miracle Soap is written on the packet and it's same ingredients as your regular soap, and that's what Nafdac certified.

People who buy the soap are those that freely chose to believe that Fufeyin impacted supernatural powers into the soap that transformed it into a Miracle Soap. And such people are exercising their legal right to freedom of religious beliefs.

So where did Fufeyin commit a crime and against who did he commit the crime?

Pls don't bother replying if you can't answer these questions?

The crime he committed is this,

The soap was taken by the pastor to Nafdac for approval for sale to the public ,without him declaring it as cure for anything.

But after securing the approval , he started marketing it in his church as a miraculous soap with nafdac approval on it If this is not criminal behaviour, then please tell me what eise it's?

Zionmdde:
Good we are saying the same thing
That as long as nafdac have certified the water and soap, vdm has no case on whether the water heals anyone or not. Just like you can't sue Joy soap for not bringing you out of depression

You don't understand how Nafdac operate or what they do.

The certification given to the miracle water by them is to assure the public that the water is safe for consumption (u fit drink ham, e nor go Purge ur belly) and not that it can cure any anything. That's all.

But the pastor,unfortunately, s telling his members that it can cure them . That's the fraud and deception.

Zionmdde:
First I don't believe in the miracle water. But that's my personal belief.
Secondly the summary of what I said is that sometimes hope heals. That's why doctors administer hope. So if the miracle water doesn't work as a miracle, it can still give one or two the hope they need to overcome it

It's still foolishness in my personal opinion to use the water for treatment

If it's foolishness,then why encouraging others to be foolish?

The man whom you're defending is not being honest about the product he is selling to his members and the general public.

He doesn't want to tell the truth that the product can only give hope and not any real cure . That's deception and you are here defending him.

There's a reason doctors offer hope to their patients. It's to aid the healing process which has been triggered by the treatment they are about to give or have given to their patients.


The pastor is only offering hope in the form of ordinary water, labeled miracle water to deceive, and nothing else as cure.

Zionmdde:
What is fraud?
1. A lawyer won't call what most of these pastors do as fraud because there are critical elements that must be present before something is called a fraud

2. If you also delve deep into psychology you will know why a person wrongly diagnosed of cancer will start withering away faster than a person who has cancer but was told he doesn't
. Am saying that to say this, if 200 people use that soap, at least 5 people will likely come back with testimonies because of number 2

Until the law classifies the Bible as fraud, what the pastors do cannot be called fraud. Ask any lawyer and get their response. Calling a pastor a fraud can land you in jail

@ the bolded , you're encouraging others to gamble with their lives. "at least 5 from 100" doesn't prove the efficacy of the so called miracle water.

if your child is down with a severe bout of malaria and typhoid, would you because of what you have argued administer the miracle water or use orthodox medicine that can effectively do the job without any kind of faith ?

babasolution:
Islam " contributes" in the sense that it probably is being manipulated to discourage education of certain groups

There's no objectivity in your submission here and that's why you have put the word, " contributes" in quotes . If it's "probably being manipulated" according to you, then the religion is not to be blamed but the "certain groups" involved in the manipulation.

You can't present this line of argument in a law court and expect any judge to rule in your favour.

Provide evidence from what the religion actually teaches to prove it discourages its members from pursuing Western education. That's all
Any other thing is your own personal opinion.

I'm not defending Islam as a Muslim. I'm not one of them but only trying to focus on what I know is true about the religion. It doesn't discourage anyone from going to school or investing in it.

babasolution:
But you realise religion especially Arabic religion in black countries also contributes to lack of investment and interest in western medication

Not true that religion or Arabic religion is the cause for the lack of interest and investment in Western education in "black countries " There's no religious text where it's written that people shouldn't acquire Western education or invest in it Those who aren't investing in it are doing so for a reason : They're afraid of losing the control which they have over the very poor and uneducated masses who they manipulate for their own selfish ends.

it's very easy for religious leaders armed with a wrong interpretation of scripture to convince their uneducated followers, who don't know the value of education or have the means to acquire it ,to abandon the idea of going to school. That's what's happening within the Boko Haram sects and others like them. In Christianity, the Jehovah witnesses leadership are discouraging their members from acquiring higher education . But it's mostly the poor members who take the advice seriously .

In Islam,wealthy Muslims or those who can afford it don't discourage their children from acquiring western education because they know that nothing in the Koran bars them from sending their children to such schools..

Mind you logical ,analytical, and strategic thinking doesn't have to be from Western education.

I haven't said it must be from Western education. I only gave an example of what can be done here for progress to happen.

But if your mind isn't beclouded by religious inclined thinking ( superstition) it can also produce good results

Freeing one's mind from superstitious beliefs is not an easy task if one hasn't acquired the critical faculty skills needed to do so.

So, what you're saying here is hardly possible if people don't learn first what it means to think and how to think very well.

Somebody once said that,"If you want to put out a fire , you don't blow at the smoke".

Provision of good quality education for the masses and the reduction of poverty in Africa is what will lead to progress and not just the eradication or banning of religion.

Europe didn't ban religion before they started making progress. What they did was to focus their attention on providing good quality education for their citizens to help them develop their critical faculty skills so they are able to use their brains the right and not submit it to religious leaders for manipulation.

That was what they did. African leaders should emulate them if we want to make progress

If you eliminate religion and don't educate the people nothing will change .

Tightpussy2024:
Is not your topic I am referring to,but I the idiots above that are using this thread as an opportunity to sham women

Ok.
But the topic is not mine. I'm not the creator of the thread.