₦airaland Forum

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=362859.msg5072738#msg5072738 date=1260283523]That's actually a good idea. You could suggest it to Seun.[/quote]Good thinking. I hope to do so when more people begin to post about such subject, otherwise it may just be a board that would die a natural death if there not enough people interested in such subjects. What do you say?

Brilliant, and just a small point here still keeps us thus far.

Deep Sight:
The Green part (green linear lines) of the image represents the fabric of space-time. It is that Green Part that the words "Space outside of wormhole" appear on.

Agreed.

That greenery is teh spacetime fabric. The black part i marked "Z" is not within spacetime. Please try to go back to the image carefully again.

Agreed again.

Observe the line along which the light ray is indicated to have to travel, if movement is not through the wormhole. It is traveling a line within spacetime. Thus it is clear that Z is not within spacetime.

Agreed yet again - illustrated below:

        https://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/assets/images/ss.wormholes.jpg
        the light-bluish blob/dor is the light that
        is travelling simultaneously on the 'fold'

At all events we should begin to wonder what it means to "fold" spacetime, because i believe that locked in that word may be the secret to understanding the nature of "Z."

What it means is simply the behavour of gravity acting on spacetime.

The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'.

I think i have shown above that this may not be the case. My thoughts are further firmed up when we reflect that cosmic bodies lie within the spacetime fabric as i indicated in purple x marks. They do not lie in "Z."

The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe. Perhaps this would help:

       [img]http://www.intensivemath.com/bigQ080208_15523a.jpg/bigQ080208_15523a-full;init:.jpg[/img]

       https://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/VZ/wormtravel.jpg

The simple thing to understand here is that all these phenomena (blackhole, wormhole, whitehole) occur within the Universe itself. Thus, the 'Z' marked in your picture is still the parts within the universe, and it makes me wonder if the 'universe is expanding into the universe'.

This point must be sealed if we for example pick a sheet of paper or a piece of cloth. If you will fold it, you will recognize immediately what i am talking about. This, i recognize, is a vastly limited example only.

I understand that example and have come across several other examples of the 4th dimension as it is not only time-travel that it could apply to. Below again for a few examples of its application:


       https://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_02/Sensen1R2405_468x418.jpg

       'Virtual human puts doctors inside their patients'
       'Researchers say they have developed the most detailed model of a human yet,
        a movable "4D" image that doctors can use to plan complex surgery or show
        patients what ailments look like inside their bodies. Called CAVEman, the larger-than-life
        computer image emcompasses more than 3,000 distinct body parts, all viewed in a booth
        that gives the image height, width and depth. It also plots the passage of time - the
        fourth 'dimension.



       https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2006/05/060525120118.jpg

       Scientists Predict How To Detect A Fourth Dimension Of Space
       'Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on
        a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model.
        The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence "braneworld"
        embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating
        in the ocean. The "braneworld universe" has five dimensions -- four spatial
        dimensions plus time -- compared with the four dimensions -- three spatial, plus
        time -- laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.'

I have serious problems with this, and i think i will have to do a diagram to force the point. I will be right back.

Okay. Everyone has serious problems with models though.

^^^_{she enters to 'help viaro out', and by the time viaro reads half way, his eyes are out of their sockets!}

Now, I am very, very scared!

Deep Sight, I was being genial and did not want to drag on and on - it wears us out and bores others. If you want strong logic, please state your case. As for the 'contradiction', I answered that my answer remains 'No' to those questions - and earlier you acquisced that all was well. To whip it up again was actually baffling, and if you want me to go through all that again, all well and good.

Now this:

Deep Sight:
Thus you have accepted that numbers are self existent. And yet you state that you have accepted no such thing. Did i have to spell out the contradiction for you? ? ?

You tried to put words in my mouth and I have maintained many times that I do not see 'numbers' as self-existent. That was why I asked my question: 'what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?' You evaded that by asking me to consult a dictionary. What game are you up to here? Just asserting things does not help your discussions - and I'm glad it's not just viaro who sees that recurring decimal in your posts.

Do I acknowledge that there are abstract things? Yes.
But do I turn round to deify those abstractions? NO. NO. [size=14pt]NO[/size]!

Your problem here seems to be that you hope everyone would just answer yea to your abstractions - whether they understand or not - and then if they don't, they must be 'lying'. What is happening to my dear friend?

Please clam down, read and listen to your friends. They know why they are asking questions and querying your larger-than-size assertions about self-existent abstractions. They (and I) don't see how you have establish your case, so where is the 'lie'?

Also there are other questions -

1. What is the "empty" space marked as "Z" in the image? I have used red spots to indicate the other empty areas. These are supposedly outside the fabric of spacetime. But DO NOT TELL ME THAT SUCH "EMPTY SPACES" ARE NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS THROUGH THAT VERY "EMPTY SPACE" THAT THE WORMHOLE IS FORMED BETWEEN Y AND X!

No, the 'empty spaces' are not 'nothing', so be rest assured. But even so, the 'empty space' is part of the universe; and the whole model in the photograph is simply an artistic representation of the theory. In the case of a wormhole in particular, there would be two 'mouths', and it is only when these two mouths meet at a certain gravity that the 'joining' (the 'throat') is formed. It is not as if the whole thing just appears at once. Below are a few examples of other models from the net:

https://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/time-travel-wormhole1.jpg

https://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/710000/images/_710812_worm_hole_inf3_300.gif

2. Z is clearly what the "universe" is expanding into. I propose that Z is infinite and self existent space. Reason being that it is boundless (as much as we can conceive) and constitutes a trajectory openness in all directions which exists even if there were no "spacetime" (the fabric in the image). What do you say to this?

Well, my thinking is somewhat different. 'Z' in your image is the other parts within the universe, and the model itself is only a small part of that universe where the wormhole is taking place. I suppose that what has happened here is that you thinking the 'folding' represented by the model is the universe, which you suppose is 'expanding' into the regions of 'Z' and the red dots. Not so - because all those marked parts are still parts of the Universe itself.

https://cosmology.com/images/WormholeBlackHoleTime.jpg

The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'. As such, the 'Z' parts being the same Universe cannot be said to be self-existent, otherwise you might be arguing for a Universe that was not created but existed all by its own.

Z is thus unlimited, and together with eternity inherent in it (given that it has no time, or is timeless: thus is infinite time) is the start point ffor understanding the oneness of infinity which i moon on and on about. I know this is crap for you, and i state it beforehand so that you needn't lash me.

No, amico mio. . you are not talking crap at all (even if others might assume so). The small point of turn here is that 'Z' is wrongly inferred, and that is why you might have thought it was self-existent. Since it is the part of the Universe where the wormhole occurs, that universe (our universe) was created at some point, and thus was not self-existent.

Am i making some sense now?

You made sense and afforded me time to think carefully. I'm indebted to you.

Okay, I have some time now. Permit me to follow you carefully here.

Deep Sight:
Now you can see the purple x marks? Those marks represent galaxies and cosmic bodies within the space-time fabric. Confirm it is correct for me to suppose that the spacetime realm contains cosmic bodies as i have indicated in the image above.

Okay, let's move on and see.

The Yellow arrow on the left of the image is pointing towards an empty place where the upper part of the folded fabric would have been lying before it was folded. Now that part would have been to the left of the image as the arrow points. Are you with me thus far?

Yes, I'm with you.

But when the fabric is folded, we have that part moving upwards and coming above the lower part of the fabric. You will see i have tagged the upper part "Y" and the lower part "X".

Yes.

Now the Y portion in the process of the folding has moved a major shift to from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to its present place above X. In so doing, i must assume that it necessarily moves with all the cosmic bodies lying within it indicated as small purple x marks.

So far so good. Below is possibly something you might be thinking about:


[img]http://poietes.files./2008/08/worm-hole.jpg[/img]

Apologies for the haste: I couldn't take the time to source for a smaller image.

I hope you can apprehend now what i am saying: that the folding must perforce entail a major cosmic realignment as the cosmic bodies within Y would have moved from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to the current position of Y. Note for emphasis that whereas the cosmic bodies within Y would previously have been to the left of the X area, they are now above it. Can you conceptualize what sort of movement of the cosmos is being talked about here?

It isn't always 'above', but let's just follow along you point.

What must occur during the said "folding?" What distortions of "spacetime" and the cosmos must be involved in this?

The second question first: the 'cosmos' is not distorted by any 'folding' of spacetime.
And the first question: what 'must' occur is the formation of various phenomena - blackhole, whitehole, or wormhole. It all depends on the particular path that the 'folding' assumes.

This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects.

The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole. The amazing thing is that there are numerous such blackholes and many parts of the universe; as well many scientists believe that there are super massive blackholes in the center of active galaxies - yet all these do not result in remodelling of the universe itself as a whole.

But assuming that there were none. Are you suggesting to me that for every single wormhole to be created, this massive cosmic realignment with its attendant effects must take place?

The effects are observed only in the regions where the phenomena occur, as noted several times. We have to be careful what we mean by 'massive cosmic realignment' and not envisage that to mean that the Universe/cosmos is remodelled.

Deep Sight:
You are contradicting yourself, and i have found in our recent debates that this always happens whenever we debate.

I'm willing to acknowledge any contradcitions only on grounds that you show it precisely. As far as that question was concerned, my answer 'No' was consistent, not a tot different than when I broke the questions down in bits and answered likewise.

I don't remember making any argument for or against abstract ideas or quantities. In the past it was clear that I was willing to let you hold any abstractions that make you happy even though they do not fit into reality such as many people understand and work with. My concern in this thread about your abstractions, however, is the way you seemed to have stretched it to apply to far reaching consequences that becloud the sense of what you were arguing.

But even at that, I wondered how you could establish the case about what 'number' in itself actually is - "what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies?", remember?

We can move on beyond this. I just couldn't let the misconception above in your reply to pass unnoticed.

Amico mio, I did not intend to waste anyone's time. Perhaps you and I were suffering from a very queer infection of miscommunication. . or our discussion just got lost somewhere until it gave MyJoe the urge to reach out for his aspirins. Either way, I could go back and show you where it all spiralled and snowballed; or I could just leave it there and hang my head with a benign smile. . . for thy sake.

@Deep Sight,

My apologes, and no excuses from me. I noted that indeed I often take jibes at posts that get me riled up, and that was how I considered his seeking a 'personal account' from me as if the whole world would stop dead on what viaro says at that point. What if I told him that I was pilgrim.1 and that turns out as a LIE - how would he know? And if I told him I was not pilgrim.1 (regardless how many times I made that point in the past 3 pages), how would that have changed anything? If he ignored what othes have been asking and my replies to them, I don't think he was being fair to me by going through that trouble to make me sound like an slowpoke. There's a point at which I can no longer put up with silly 'humble' posts - even though I joke many times with people under other sorts of allegations (viaro is an atheist, viaro is mavenbox, viaro is Krayola, viaro is an evolutionists in disguise with bedfellows somewhere in the dar. . viaro is this, viaro is that).

He should have been content to read well the pages before and not try to sit on my life demanding my 'personal account'. That is where I draw the line and take no nonsense from anyone. Again, I apologise to him - and everyone else - and I hope at least people would understand how to interract and avoid stretching things beyond limits.

Phew! There at last! Krayo my man, what went wrong yesterday? I waited at the [*  *] location (mavenbox scared you away or what?)

Krayola:
 I swear this thread can be used as a template for a reality show or some kinda prime time entertainment. NO ONE, no matter how talented, can come up with a script this good. This is just classic stuff!!

They already told me how it works in this court. So, no worries there!

Viaro, u dey try. .  these people want to finish you. Saro Wiwa style . . . . Guilty until hung and found innocent.  

No, no. If it was not for Dio, viaro would have been roasted meat long ago - see the miscarriage of judgement attempt!!

____________________

Krayola:
damn. . we have even started to analyse laughter again. . .ok. . this is getting out of hand. Where is Abuzola when u need him?

You haven't seen nothing. . . nada. . zilch. Just wait!!

Pastor AIO:
Please viaro, all I want to know now is: What language do you laugh in? Or what languages do you laugh in, if you're multilingual in laughter?

Fair enough. But Pastor AIO, I don't know if laughter has any langauges or dialects, although part of the fun on Nairaland is that people laugh in all sorts of languages - arabic, french, etc. It is here on nairaland I first saw that and tried to adopt it (made a poor attempt at one time by laughing in UFO).

Okay, the 'hehehe' thing is not strange to English bloggers, writers, forumites, etc. I might've had a bad habit in picking it up from so many sources; and if you want examples, I oblige gladly:


1. 'is "hehe" an english word? if so, it means, ?'
~~ you'll find people's opinion there variously expressed
@ the EnglishBaby website


2. 'All Languages: laughter (haha hehe)!'
~~ scroll down and see how people use the 'hehehe' version along with various others
@ the Word Reference website


3. Even the Japanese use it either as 'hehehe' or 'fu-fu-fu' or 'he-he-he'
@ How Japanese Laugh website


4. What two guys say it means to them - 'hehehe' or 'hahaha'
@ URBAN Dictionary website

Like I said, in my case, I use it - not because it borders on language use or construct, but because that is common to English bloggers, forumites, writers, voglers, etc.

KunleOshob:
You should know me reasonably well by now after all the heated debates arguments we've had on this forum in the last one year.

_{By the way what happened to our love sef? is it just going to die like that}

One year? Are you serious? Or are you missing someone that badly you're trying to hug me? Could someone help this guy and make him understand viaro is not gay?

KunleOshob:
Because viaro pilgrim.1 is notorious for belabouring issues and not giving two scoobies wether anyone cares or not.

Jumping from line to line and showing nothing is typical of you, and I've long got used to seeing you as a piece of joke.

@OLAADEGBU,

I am not a rebel, a dog or swine - and there's no need for me to quote any verses in like manner to take a swipe at you, while feigning that it came to me by my Lord Jesus Christ. The one thing we should understand is this: as Christians, if we owe no other community on planet earth, we owe ourselves the duty to stop circulating confusion and misusing words about science. That was just the plain reason why I took you to task about in my reply, because you were making very gutted statements that make absolutely no sense at all - not to you or anyone else.

For example:

'God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that
the laws of chemistry would be correct'

What sense does that make? God created the laws of physics - so that - the laws of chemistry would be correct? What?!? So, the laws of chemistry would not be correct until the the laws of physics were divinely created in 'the right way'? Where did you learn that kind of science?

It is not as if I'm here to harm you, nor does your allegation that my posts sound atheistic make any sense either. I'm sure that even the Lord Jesus Himself would not be speaking any verse to encourage that kind of 'science' that makes no sense.

No2Atheism:
- On the contrary, I disagree. Pilgrim.1 was one of the few people on nairaland that I actually had (and still have) a lot of respect for.

- I am a very difficult person to impress, hence that Pilgrim.1 impressed me says a lot.

Now, I know and understand where you're coming from. I objected to the idea that you demanded a personal account from me about anything. Very few people like davidylan have noticed that is not the way I see life - rather, I would be willing to engage people who just ask their questions and stop acting as overlords. Sorry if viaro is not the type of person to impress anyone - I have stated that I don't give two scoobies about whether anyone is or not impressed by my discussions. Go through this thread and see: if i were pilgrim.1, why would I have been trying so hard to debate this issue? If i were marvenbox, why would I have been belabouring the point up until now? What is it really that has become so, so important about viaro that this thread has grown to the 4th page?

KunleOshob:
GOTCHA !!! finally let it slip, this a tacit admission that you are Pilgrim else you won't be responding on her behalf

Lol, how did you 'gotcha'? What is the admission there by my question? You like making these very amusing silly lines as if there's any substance in what you're seeking to establish. This is real comedy!

No2Atheism:
- You still are not answering the question.

I explained why - and I wanted to see how 'true' people like you can be to your own words. Did you say that if I didn'yt give you a personal account, you would not bother any no more? This is how you adjudicate your own 'honest' Christian and deign to sit over others' heads. I can't laugh.

- The right correct thing for a bible believer to do is to ask you directly as regards the allegations. . . which is exactly what I am doing.

Yeah, tell me something else that I don't know. People have asked directly, I answered: but you would sit over my life and pretend to be holier-than-thou seeking a personal account. Wel done.

- I am not turning to Mavenbox cus she is not the one I am asking the question, instead I am asking you.

Surprise-surpise! I wonder why you would not turn to her, is there any worry there? you just confirmed my suspicions, you know: empty, loud, full of yourself. If you can't turn to mavenbox and ask her, why ask me if I was mavenbox? What was so special that it has to be me you had to ask?

- As a bible believer, No I am not sitting over as judge over you, infact I am doing the right thing by prefering to hear from you myself instead of hearing the report of others. Hence why i asked the question and hence why you answer is what I am going to hold on to and not the comments of others. Infact I am considering that honour that a Bible believer is supposed to have hence why as far as I am concerned, what you say to me with your own mouth carries more weight than what others say that you said.

As a Christian, I am also doing the right thing by not playing dumb to every stupid question whipped up by 'Bible believing' folks.

- If you decide not to answer, I would take it as either you are dodging the question or you simply choose not to answer. . . either way its your call.

If my prevous answers would not suffice when others have asked, I take it that you're being deliberately mischievous - especially when you won't be ask mavenbox if you're in doubt. What is the connection between us that there must be a big difference to do the sane thing to ask her?

- This would be the last time I would bother to ask the question, your response would tell me whether or not you choose to either dignify me with a response or choose not to dignify me with a response. . . either way, I would take my leave.

I have responded, as you can see - only thing is it may not come across to dignify your comedy of seeking a personal account.

KunleOshob:
@No2atheism
If you know pilgrim well you would realize that she has no problems with standing the truth on it's head. Infact that is one of her hallmarks.

What 'truth' have I stood on its head? You're just becoming more of laugh with every attempt, keep at it.

No2Atheism:
If you are not going to give me a personal account and response, I would hold my peace and bother you no more.

Personal account? How?
The question you asked have been answered and it is least interesting to me to parrot the same answers. I personally find it quite humourous that as a Christian you would even go so far as to sit as judge over people's personal accounts, lol - that is why I'm humouring you on that note. If you're in doubt, turn to mavenbox and ask her directly if she's viaro.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=363154.msg5071097#msg5071097 date=1260267915]Emm, y'all Tudór is a SHE and not HE.[/quote]Oh gosh! Apologies again - I forgot!

@Deep Sight,

I've seen your posts and will attend to them in due course, Please be patient, I also hope to add some illustrations harvested from the net to make a few points clear.

No2Atheism:
1. The style of highligthing and referencing is something my memory tells me that I learnt from Pilgrim.1

I just didn't want to risk misreading you, which was why I asked for clarification. I take it then (amusingly) that pilgrim.1 holds the key to Nairaland's coding of hyperlinks, or that no one else actually does that, or what?

Anyways, to your question: what new theory are you up to? Yes, I'm deliberately playing football with you, No2Atheism, because it seems odd that after having answered those questions several times, I must come back and specially attend to you on them - separately from my having answered them to others, No? You must be kidding me.

MyJoe:
But not knowing the form or size of God does not stand in the way of recognising his existence. Thank you.

Applause.

What is scary about the highlighted part?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=363154.msg5070985#msg5070985 date=1260266530]Why is my holy name being included in your defense viaro? Please be warned. . . Right now you're an accused offender I don't want to be associated with you in ANY way.

Clear your name first then you can refrence the name Tudór all you want.

There was a time they accused me of being Huxley I don't want that again.[/quote]Your honour, I apologise to Tudor. My mentioning his name was to show what I did - from the earliest, I make no pretences jibing people; and even so in that thread was glad it came to an end nicely. I realize that mentioning a member of the jury without permission from the bench is an offence - viaro will not do so again, your honour.

KunleOshob:
You must realy know pilgrim.1 very well to be able to deduce that in the over 5,000 post she's done on nairaland that she Never revealed her denomination. Please try again, that is a very cheap attempt.

I don't have to try half as hard as you, KunleOshob. If you have even followed this thread at all, you would understand that my looking into her profile and past posts were a consequence of folks like you alleging viaro = pilgrim.1, I made this point clear to Jesoul here. I haven't gone through all her posts, but from the ones I saw when she debated Catholicism with Catholics, she was asked that question several times and she didn't give any indication. If anyone feels I was mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected: is that a problem to you? Please try harder, you're embarrassing your kangaroo court with your lame attempts.

No2Atheism:
2. Why would a self professed Bible believer seek to deceive people considering that any matured Bible believer knows that he or she ought to be faithful in the little things and in the big things, hence having different identities would certainly not be in character of a Bible believer.

Thank you, No2Atheism. Of the points you made, could I address this one above, because that is what bothers me as it does you. Just why would anyone think I'm here to deceive them by pretending to be male if I were actually female? Why would I reveal that I am a Baptist, where it seems odd that pilgrim.1 was not forthcoming on that same question a few people asked her? (I don't know if she eventually revealed her denomination, and I would appreciate anyone showing same to correct me on that). Okay, viaro is mavenbox, and both mavenbox and viaro are/is Krayola - all this upon what: conjectures?

KunleOshob:
Brilliant thread shame i am just seeing it after three pages but i have gone through every post and now ready to take a front sit. But so far i must comment pilgrim.1 is really propestorous. The evidence is overwhemling from, writing style to use of phrases, to interest topics, to arguement strategies,to being higly opinionated then pretending she wants to learn, to being arrogant / i too know, penchant to insult others, to use of big grammer e.t.c even though she makes feeble attempts to disguise herself i.e by not making constant references to previous posts of pilgrim.1[so as not give herself away]. This referencing is the only difference i have observed between viaro and pilgrim.1 and the reason is obvious if she constantly references pilgrim.1 posts the game would be given away. But the trend is now emerging even as viaro, having posted enough posts as viaro she as started making her regular references to her previous posts, the trend continues.

PS: _{I am not suprised she needed to change her I.D after developing such a lousy reputation on this forum it is obvious she needed to change her I.D.}

Dear jury, you are late in court, but I guess the judge could excuse that. Be that as it may, I con't see what point you have established that is fresh and new to what others have tried to conjecture. Is there any need to take them piece by piece to examine the evidence, hmm?

~ The evidence is overwhemling from, writing style to use of phrases,
. . poor conjecture, trashed and binned. You were the one who alleged
in another thread that the 'nada, zilch' and 'don't give two scoobies' are
part of pilgrim.1's phraseology - I asked for a link to see, and your honour,
I am still waiting.

~ to interest topics, to arguement strategies,to being higly opinionated
. . we've heard that before - trashed and binned. You, KunleOshob, do
the same: interest topics, argument strategies, and very very highly
opinionated. What's the crack there? Another poor attempt, really.

~ then pretending she wants to learn, to being arrogant / i too know,
. . yes, I often interract with others and learn from them. If you're that
closed minded that you know it all and have no room to learn a dot
from anyone else, be it so. Your problem is you want everyone to be
beaten to your crass, and where they do not, you write them off as
arrogant and refusing to learn. Duh!

~ penchant to insult others, to use of big grammer e.t.c
. . my diction has been deliberated upon, and if you have poor use
of verbiage, is that my fault? Now, the penchant to insult - yes,
your honour, viaro has made clear so many times in recent past in
discussions with this member of the jury that he would not tolerate
any nonsense from them. I several times quoted verses from Proverbs
to him, and consequently followed through and blasted the smitherings
out of his fck.ing face when he arrogated to himself the brithright to insult me
free of charge. Call it tit-for-tit. If pilgrim.1 does the same, good for the
"it" called KunleOshob; and I'm sure it's not only viaro who insults
twerps and buffoons like him. One of my early post on entry to NL
was about this problem between discussants, a thread opened by Pastor AIO.
Soon after, I engaged Tudor and also made no pretences slamming him
as well. We ended that silly game nicely. There's also a thread opened by
michelin about why people insult others - he should have been worried
about his grey khaki shorts sitting around with free-lance vitriol against
others. Want more? Twerp!
Excuse me, your honour - I was establishing 'evidence'.

~  even though she makes feeble attempts to disguise herself i.e by not
making constant references to previous posts of pilgrim.1[so as not give
herself away]
. . even sillier, Lol. I should have been making references and quoting
pilgrim.1, or anyone else for that matter, just so you have the poor
Nigerian style 'evidence'  you seek. Do you have an independent mind of
your own?

~ This referencing is the only difference i have observed between viaro
and pilgrim.1 and the reason is obvious if she constantly references pilgrim.1
posts the game would be given away.
. . hahaha! I didn't come to Nairaland to play any games; and even though
other posters say similar things as others do without referencing them, please
tell me how my failure to reference pilgrim.1 translates into my being the
same person?

~ But the trend is now emerging even as viaro, having posted enough posts
as viaro she as started making her regular references to her previous posts,
the trend continues
. . yes, I started doing so - in the same way as I told Davidylan in another
post that I only recently started using multiple colours in my posts as
she does - to gull twerps like you who should have been using your
own heads and not borrowed brains seeking who's who before you can
pay attention to what they are saying. That's not my style, and you can
try some more convincing conjectures. .  or continue to play the fool you
demonstrate of yourself in court.


Em, your honour, respectfully submitted.

Hehehe. . . now I laugh out loud, very loud in court. Besides, I should show contempt of court and even slap the judge.

Your honour, what point really have you made in post #80? Oh, I forgot, you already told me how it works in your court - nothing tangible is established, but somehow somewhere conjectures upon conjectures have to be made just to 'nail' it. So far, you guys are doing a very poor job at it, and I wait to see some cogency in your missive. Like I said, this has become so laughable and a joke that I no longer take offence at what anyone says.

Your honour, viaro still awaits the substance of your proceedings.

olabowale:
Viaro rests on Sundays. I have some Nigerian friends who shutdown from Sunset Friday to Sunset Saturday! Viaro, who is right between the two of you?

I don't know.
But I know that olabowale's posts are voted as the most meaningless posts of the year!

Christianity is losing people of Christian Heaven to people of Christian Lake of Fire even before Jesus comes down to swoop them up in a single rapture!

That may be true on the surface, at least it is a relief to know it's unlike Islam where allah has made an irrevocable promise by decree to send all muslims to hell. Phew! that must be something, man!

No, Viaro?

I sometimes try to understand your tales, but just realised some other thing: which muslims among the more than 70 sects of Islam would make jannah (that is after being sent to hell fire by allah)? I hear it's not heaven you guys are going to, but a 'garden' where your muslim men can all chase 72 wide eyed virgins around rivers of liquor.

Besides all this, has any Muslim woman thought of her role in that garden? Where's uplawal? How is she sure that allah would give her to Abuzola?

mavenbox:
@Kraviyarola: Your enigma code is permeable. Sorry, I meant to say, vacuous. Meet you guys at the series of tiny shops near congregation of mallams, huddled in the corner on the street in THE city, shivering in the cold Nigerian December night

_{I am getting really scared now. How did she know?!?}

@OLAADEGBU,

OLAADEGBU:
@viaro,

It is becoming clear to me that you speak more like an atheist evolutionists more than a creationist.  Why do you say that these guys don't know what they are talking about, do you know their qualifications and professions?  Who do you think invented the scientific method, evolutionists?  Go figure out before you begin to say what you know little or nothing about. You can tell that to your evolutionist bedfellows.

I'm familair with your frustrations, but take heart - I didn't mean any harm. It is clear that you either have no clue what you're trying to talk about and are just bandying the words 'science', 'evidence', etc around in a cosmetic fashion. So, tell me: who invented the scientific method - your hand-clapping pastors at Deeper Life?  

There's no need to get all jumpy, my pal. Science is science and was not invented as a religious thing or the key to atheism. This is why when people begin to use such words as highlighted above as 'evidence' for what is beyond science, they make matters worse than when they first began.

The laws of nature or the scientific laws depend on other laws of nature which ultimately depend on God's Will.

How do you know? How do you determine God's Will as the determinant of the laws of nature or scientific laws? Is that another one of your 'just-say-so' lines that we have to wait forever for you to prove?

God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that the laws of chemistry would be correct so that life can exist.

Please shut up. God did not create any laws of physics or laws of chemistry! This is the nonsense that people like ICR will tell you - and without thinking, you just vomit the same! Yea, I get you: 'laws of physics/chemistry' indeed. Let's review some of them:

       Newton's Laws of Motion
       Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
       Avogadro's Law
       Dalton's law of multiple proportions
       Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
       Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
       Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
       Gay-Lussac's Law
       Noether's theorem
       Pauli Exclusion Principle
       BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
       Biot-Savart law
       _{. . . and if you like to add:  'OLAADEGBU's Contant'.}

Dear bros, please don't make me laugh. Which one of the Laws in physics and chemistry did God 'create'? Do you even know the meaning of a scientific law and how they are formulated? Try this for size to get a hint: 'Laws being consequences of mathematical symmetries'. Let's try again: who created mathematics? Huh?  I want to know if you understand the nature of Maths before you begin to run riot accusing me of evolutionary bedfellows again!

It is doubtful that any human would have been able to solve such complex puzzle.  Yet, God has done so.

Hahaha! So, let me guess: you already know God has solved the puzzle, and OLAADEGBU has the answers, right? If you know what you're talking about, I guess you already know that answers as solved by God - so please share with the public and do humanity proud. Or just stop creating a 6-day problem for us.

The atheist cannot account for these laws of nature, even though he agrees that they must exist, for such laws are inconsistent with naturalism.

What are you babbling about? Atheism is not science, nor is Christianity: so what is so special about the atheist not being able to account for these laws? And who ever said that any Religion is able to account for those laws either? Bobs, you may not yet have understood the nature of science, for even when you do, it should be clear to you that there are many things that we cannot account for as religious people. I'm not an atheist, nor am I sounding apologetic for atheism - but truth be told, many religious people talk a lot of rubbish that is neither scientific nor coherent, because they hope that when they spice up their talk with 'science'  and 'laws', etc., then all is well.  

Yet they are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

Okay, okay, I get you bro. Please share with me how the following are consistent with the Bible:

       Newton's Laws of Motion
       Law of Archimedes (or Archimedes' principle)
       Avogadro's Law
       Dalton's law of multiple proportions
       Einstein's General and Special Laws of Relativity
       Boyle's Law in thermodynamics
       Charles' Law (or law of volumes)
       Gay-Lussac's Law
       Noether's theorem
       Pauli Exclusion Principle
       BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer)
       Biot-Savart law

I just want to see where such laws of physics and chemistry are taught in the Bible, as viaro claims absolute ignorance and in all his reading of the Bible, he has not found any verse where these laws appear (I know the Law of Moses like the back of my hand, though). So please share.

We expect the universe to be organised in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the Power of the uncreated Creator.

Please sir, show me the laws of physics and chemistry in any version or translation of the Bible, and it sufficeth me.



____________________

@mazaje, please hurry up and arrange that debate between Ken Ham and viaro. . . it seems delay is dangerous now.