Today's Scripture Reading

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

quote your source, where you get this statistic from. which group did it, sample size, target, and culture, and its standard deviation.

i went and check i cannot find a single peered review paper on this. few talk cock website did mention this without any sources on where this statistic is from (in another word making it up from thin air).

Dear Scientist (????) Rojak,


SOURCE!? Is you want to play statistic one ar, come loh, show me i go analysis the result. i dun mind spend 1 hr study the methodology of the paper

You did attempt to find out? And you confirm there is none on this subject.....

I am not going to spoon-feed you with a copy of the report, and in any event, I don't think you are not really interested in the subject. Nonetheless, I felt I owe readers what I have said and to support what I have said, I am reproducing an excerpt of a study done by seven medical professionals and they all carried credential like M.D. or PhD. They are real scientists...unlike what we see here in this forum. Their findings were published in the Amercian Journal of Psycharists. The following are excerpts of their findings....please don't bad-mouth them. They have no religious affiliations. They are secular doctors and this paper was published with no connection whatsoever with any religious organization.

RESULTS:
Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS:
Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.


Note from Psalm23:

It is interesting to note of what the results shown. People who have no religion seem to have lost the meaning of living. They are living in the state of hopelessness and despair. This is what happens when people keep thinking that they are mere descendants of apes, chimpanzees, monkeys whatever. But if you sincerely believe that we are created in God's image with an absolute and sure hope of eternal life free from all our worldly strives, no matter how difficult our situation, you see have great meaning in your existence.

Living a life that matter is a choice. Prayerfully, the following poem (sorry, composer unknown to me) and the word of God could really give you some real courage to take on our walk on earth.

What Will Matter

Ready or not, some day it will come to an end.
There will be no more sunrises, no minutes, hours or days.
All the things you collected, whether treasured or forgotten, will pass to someone else.
Your wealth, fame and temporal power will shrivel to irrelevance.
It will not matter what you owned or what you owed.
Your grudges, resentments, frustrations and jealousies will finally disappear.
So too, your hopes, ambitions, plans and to-do lists will expire.
The wins and losses that once seemed so important will fade away.
It won't matter where you came from, or what side of the tracks you lived on, at the end.
It won't matter whether you were beautiful or brilliant.
Even your gender or skin colour will be irrelevant.

So what will matter? How will the value of your days be measured?
What will matter is not what you bought, but what you built.
Not what you got, but what you gave.
What will matter is not your success, but your significance.
What will matter is not what you learned, but what you taught.
What will matter is every act of integrity, compassion, courage or sacrifice that enriched, empowered or encouraged others to emulate your example.
What will matter is not your competence, but your character.
What will matter is not how many people you knew, but how many will feel a lasting loss when you're gone.
What will matter is not your memories, but the memories that lived in those who loved you.
What will matter is how long you will be remembered, by whom, and for what.
Living a life that matters doesn't happen by accident.
It's not a matter of circumstance, but of choice.
Choose to live a life that matters.​

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

hello this is not spoonfeeding, you throw a challenge at others with statistic, others ask you to back it. its either you got the balls to back it or not. and you bloody understand the paper or not?

Just type this if you got the balls to use this, the reason why you do not dare to list it is because you are scare that i look through it.

Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:2303-2308

i looked through the journal, the sample size for religious group is 305, and non religious group only 66.

its on those are already mental patients, the studies relate it to their sucide tendancy and aggression. among these 371 people, those that do not have a religious background are indeed more aggressive and tends to sucide. fine i accepted that since that is the conclusion with proper studies. this was the studies that was being performed. it did not prove or provide statistic to show that those with normal mental health are prone to mental illness or tend to sucide. THAT WAS NOT ITS FOCUS AND YOU CLAIM THIS STUDIES SUPPORT WHAT YOU HAD STATED.

haHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. this is what i call qouting without reading the full paper and knowing the method behind or what was the focus. you only cut and paste the final conclusion etc without letting others know the background of the test subjects. THESE ARE ALREADY NUT CASE. ITS NOT ON THOSE THAT ARE MENTALLY SOUND.

NOW LETS DO A SIMPLE MATHS, 66/371 HMMMMmmm why is the sample size of atheist so small? why are there so few atheist test subjects??? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

if we look at the sample size assuming this is the same home, the tendency of those with religious background becoming the test subject was SOOO MUCH HIGHER at least 6 TIMES. well we atheist rather not become a test subject in this, you can proudly claim the honour of being one.

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Inpatients (N=371) who met DSM-III-R criteria for a current major depressive episode were entered into the study. The mean age of the sample was 36.8 years (SD=12.8), 40.4% (N=150) were female, and 78.2% (N=290) were white. Subjects were recruited at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic. Exclusion criteria were current substance or alcohol abuse, neurological illness, or other active medical conditions. All subjects gave written informed consent for the study as required by the Institutional Review Board.
DSM-III-R axis I psychiatric disorders were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (16) and confirmed by a consensus conference led by experienced M.D.- or Ph.D.-level clinicians. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (17), the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) (excluding the suicide item) (18), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (19), the Beck Depression Inventory (20), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (21). Lifetime aggression, hostility, and impulsivity were measured with the Brown-Goodwin Aggression Inventory (22), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (23), and the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (24). Stressful life events were assessed with the St. Paul-Ramsey Scale (unpublished 1978 instrument of A.E. Lumry). The Reasons for Living Inventory (12) was administered to assess protective factors. Social network assessments were made by using the "significant others" items from our baseline demographic form, which inquire about the persons with whom subjects spend the most time and how much time they spend. We chose these items as a proxy for social network assessment, since they reflect two important characteristics as described by Lin et al. (25): frequency of contact and network composition. In order to perform logistic regressions, we dichotomized the variable "significant others" as follows: family members (spouse, mother, father, sibling, offspring, grandparent, other relatives) and non-family members (roommate, friend, fiancée, other).
Lifetime history of suicide attempts was obtained from the Columbia Suicide History Form (26). A suicide attempt was defined as a self-destructive act with at least some intent to end one’s life. The highest level of suicidal ideation in the 2 weeks preceding the baseline assessment was measured by using the Scale for Suicide Ideation (27).

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Why only cut and paste the section that selectively only support your view? why dun dare to show everything?
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA KNN i went through the method i laugh immediately at you

assume the recuited subject is representative of those inpatient in New York State Psychiatric Institute and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic

Atheist = 66/371 X 100 = 18%
Religious = 82 %

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AJP/3987/N524T2.jpeg

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

............why is the sample size of atheist so small? ,,,,,,, HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.......

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

You are laughing at yourself! You have forgotten what I have written earlier on the 'sampling' in relation to the studies by Charles Darwin at the Galapagos islands. What he did was examining the wildlife in Galapagos Islands, the total area is just 0.1% of the Australia, yet his theory of evolution largely based on the specimens that he collected from just these group of insignificant islands could convince people like you. Since then, many biologists, geologists and scientists who have special interest in evolution have been digging fossil specimens covering areas that could be thousands, if not million of times largely then Galapagos Islands, and yet there is still no conclusive evidence that life was evolved from one specie (presumably a simple one) to the another specie (presumably more complex one), yet, hallucinated people like you still believe his theory of evolution inspite of this total insigificant sample size. Unlike the article by the group of doctors, the evolution theory - the Origin of Specie - was primarily written by one man who simply arranged the specimens he collected at the Galapagos Islands. Sadly, his assembly technique rather than the statistical technique has cheated and fooled many people like you.

For the article published by the American Journal of Psychiatry, you must be aware that this is the official journal of the American Psychiartists Association. The researchers are not that stupid like some so-called scientists here to publish a paper that they cannot defend. Their credential would be at stake. Furthermore, if the studies are questionable, for whatever reasons, the editor would have disallowed the paper to be published. It's an honest research and like all survey-based researches, it is quite difficult to form an absolute conclusion. They admitted it though they could see some significant positive influence on people who are religious - largely the Christians - and those who are not.

There are many, many research studies done on this topic - suicide rates of people who believe in God (largely Christian-based) and those who do not believe in God. Without fail, we can read of two outcomes: Either there is a positive link, that is the suicide rate is lower for those who believe in God compared to those who do not believei in God; or at 'worst' there is no difference. You rarely read of research study pointed to the third possibility: Suicide rate of those who believe in God is higher than those who don't believei in God.

Even Singapore Government recognises this fact, and that's why prison focuses religious outreach. I am not qualified to give an opinion of other religions, but it is well-documented that the relapse rate of prisoners and repeated offenders are fewer when prisoners come to know Jesus, and accept jesus as their Saviour. It is also well-documented that drug-addicts, gamblers and other serious criminals tend to keep away from their offences and stay free from prison after they have come to know Jesus. Among others, the most important, scripturally-speaking, is that people who come to know the God of the Bible have improved their self-esteem, and more importantly - scripturally-speaking, too - the very purpose of life: Ware are created in the image of God and God has great plan for all His redeemed sinners. People get into crimes; commit suicides are because - largely - of low self-esteed, lost the purpose for what life is all about and feel that they are living in the state of hopelessness. So, are you one of those who are living in a state of hopelessness! If you are, come to Jesus, the God of the Bible. He will give you hope, the hope of eternal life.

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

You are laughing at yourself! You have forgotten what I have written earlier on the 'sampling' in relation to the studies by Charles Darwin at the Galapagos islands. What he did was examining the wildlife in Galapagos Islands, the total area is just 0.1% of the Australia, yet his theory of evolution largely based on the specimens that he collected from just these group of insignificant islands could convince people like you. Since then, many biologists, geologists and scientists who have special interest in evolution have been digging fossil specimens covering areas that could be thousands, if not million of times largely then Galapagos Islands, and yet there is still no conclusive evidence that life was evolved from one specie (presumably a simple one) to the another specie (presumably more complex one), yet, hallucinated people like you still believe his theory of evolution inspite of this total insigificant sample size. Unlike the article by the group of doctors, the evolution theory - the Origin of Specie - was primarily written by one man who simply arranged the specimens he collected at the Galapagos Islands. Sadly, his assembly technique rather than the statistical technique has cheated and fooled many people like you.

For the article published by the American Journal of Psychiatry, you must be aware that this is the official journal of the American Psychiartists Association. The researchers are not that stupid like some so-called scientists here to publish a paper that they cannot defend. Their credential would be at stake. Furthermore, if the studies are questionable, for whatever reasons, the editor would have disallowed the paper to be published. It's an honest research and like all survey-based researches, it is quite difficult to form an absolute conclusion. They admitted it though they could see some significant positive influence on people who are religious - largely the Christians - and those who are not.

There are many, many research studies done on this topic - suicide rates of people who believe in God (largely Christian-based) and those who do not believe in God. Without fail, we can read of two outcomes: Either there is a positive link, that is the suicide rate is lower for those who believe in God compared to those who do not believei in God; or at 'worst' there is no difference. You rarely read of research study pointed to the third possibility: Suicide rate of those who believe in God is higher than those who don't believei in God.

Even Singapore Government recognises this fact, and that's why prison focuses religious outreach. I am not qualified to give an opinion of other religions, but it is well-documented that the relapse rate of prisoners and repeated offenders are fewer when prisoners come to know Jesus, and accept jesus as their Saviour. It is also well-documented that drug-addicts, gamblers and other serious criminals tend to keep away from their offences and stay free from prison after they have come to know Jesus. Among others, the most important, scripturally-speaking, is that people who come to know the God of the Bible have improved their self-esteem, and more importantly - scripturally-speaking, too - the very purpose of life: Ware are created in the image of God and God has great plan for all His redeemed sinners. People get into crimes; commit suicides are because - largely - of low self-esteed, lost the purpose for what life is all about and feel that they are living in the state of hopelessness. So, are you one of those who are living in a state of hopelessness! If you are, come to Jesus, the God of the Bible. He will give you hope, the hope of eternal life.

As usual like what i said earlier,

now trying the diversion tactic fucking no substance at all

Use a fuck up example without knowing what they are studying, now totally change topic.
you got better way of defending yourself a not? i never attack their result, IS YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THEY STUDYING A NOT. now acusing me attacking them? hello fucker you brain dead is it, Go reread what i said and dun put words in my mouth. the test subject is those who are already mental, using this case study to justify those who are not does not hold water scientifically. it only justified those who are mentally unsound. forget it you are too stupid to get it anyway, i already mention this 2nd time and you will come at it like a donkey again.

knn your stupidity is way beyond my understanding. quote their conclusion etc without reading properly what are they studying on who are their test subjects. HAHAHAHAHAHA kam lan gong chee bye. go figure why so few atheist test subjects in the first place?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA almost 6 times. its easier to find mentally unsound religious idiot, 6 times easier HHHAHAHHAHAHHA. THIS IS THE EXACT REASON WHY I DARE U TO PUT THE METHODOLOGY DOWN, ANY WELL RECOGNISED JOURNAL WILL INCLUDE IT. WHY ARE YOU HIDING IT ? HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA 6 TIMES THE SAMPLE SIZE FOR RELIGIOUS NUTS HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA DOES THAT TELL U SOMETHING?

that why for past few post i totally ignore you, for you lack of the substance to even hold a proper argument as we could see from past few pages of thread. when proven wrong, side track, throw smoke screen. what else can you do ?

go one corner fuck yourself useless fuck

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

now as usual we have proven this useless idiot intelligence level, lets goes back to the current topic of our fellow forumer thinking Dog is talking to him

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

......now trying the diversion tactic ......that why for past few post i totally ignore you.....

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

Don't be a sore loser! Who is doing the diversion tactic....I don't really know what you mean by this, just presume you are accusing me of introducing new topic to avoid the issues. If that's the case...I am afraid you are the one and not me. What I have written is nothing really new. It was posted just last week....namely the highly questionable small sample specimens collected by Charles Darwin who he had used them to so ridiculously come out with this theory of evolution. This theory has cheated and fooled many people (sadly, you are one of these people!)

So, don't be a sore loser...you just couldn't find anymore reason to discredit my message......Be a good loser, please....stand up and be a man...and don't speak and scold like those old aunties....in fact, some aunties who worked in my office have much more grace than you. Again, this is not a new message...I have posted this before....

So, I am glad you have ignored me.....the answer and the reason is simple: You just couldn't find any reasons to prove your case...so glad that you have decided to ignore me, and thankfully for all the good reason: You have run out of reasons. So, please leave this forum here...but if you want to start your own...by all means....but ignoring me will look better for you.If you keep coming in here, sorry, you will be bashed up (apology for using this term) by a primary 8 plus blogger!

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

Don't be a sore loser! Who is doing the diversion tactic....I don't really know what you mean by this, just presume you are accusing me of introducing new topic to avoid the issues. If that's the case...I am afraid you are the one and not me. What I have written is nothing really new. It was posted just last week....namely the highly questionable small sample specimens collected by Charles Darwin who he had used them to so ridiculously come out with this theory of evolution. This theory has cheated and fooled many people (sadly, you are one of these people!)

So, don't be a sore loser...you just couldn't find anymore reason to discredit my message......Be a good loser, please....stand up and be a man...and don't speak and scold like those old aunties....in fact, some aunties who worked in my office have much more grace than you. Again, this is not a new message...I have posted this before....

So, I am glad you have ignored me.....the answer and the reason is simple: You just couldn't find any reasons to prove your case...so glad that you have decided to ignore me, and thankfully for all the good reason: You have run out of reasons. So, please leave this forum here...but if you want to start your own...by all means....but ignoring me will look better for you.If you keep coming in here, sorry, you will be bashed up (apology for using this term) by a primary 8 plus blogger!

eh chee bye kia,

let people read loh, see thread from page 91 onwards who is the one that is side tracking. the topic was on another idiot like you dreaming a dog talking to him. u out of sudden insert in another topic "theory of evolution". u really dan bai up your head, now you insist i was discussing on this topic with others. you really knn in very serious delusion.

i had in the past mention already, you dare to answer back my question a not when i shoot. when you have the balls then come talk to me. i will one by one dig out all the questions and attack you again based on your lan jiao understanding on evolution.

fucking conman u this chee bye kia

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

........

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

You sound that you are really in crisis....not surprising! You are no difference to Charles Darwin's theory - since the discovery of DNA, the theory is in crisis; it has gone into the blackhole. Don't get hallucinated with this useless theory that tells you nothing about 'evolution'. Our Jurong Bird Park indeed offers more variety of species of birds than those found in the Galapagos Islands yet Charles Darwin observations of the widelife found in those islands could so convincingly cheated and fooled people for over 150 years through his useless/nonsensical theory of evolution.

Sadly, Charles Darwin's followers read without understand the underlying principles and the basic of survey-based research which was basically the method used by this conman to fool the world. And talk about peer review...there wasn't any peer review of his writing....his writing on the Origin of Species carried 'weigh' simply because he was so connected with the Royal Family. Though not a member of a Royal Family, he was accorded a Royal burial and he was buried in graveyard reserved mainly for the British Royal family members. Words like transmutation was used in his other writings and while the word 'mutation' which is a highly technical and can only be best understood when you connect with the discovery of DNA, yet people just simply accept the meaning. Frankly, no one actually understand what this word really meant 150 years ago!

The theory of evolution based on the Origin of Species was accepted not on the merit of evidence but rather was accepted because of the credential of the writer...mainly he was so connected with the Royal Family of Queen Victoria.

Yours truly
Writer of this is a Primary 8 Plus Netizen of Sammyboy

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

The theory of evolution based on the Origin of Species was accepted not on the merit of evidence but rather was accepted because of the credential of the writer...mainly he was so connected with the Royal Family of Queen Victoria.

Yours truly
Writer of this is a Primary 8 Plus Netizen of Sammyboy

i under crisis or a dog that keep believe in a book that is possible to have light before there is sun?

kam lan gong chee bye

HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhaha. THIS ONE MUST QUOTE HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

this simply shows one thing, you have zero idea behind his life story. i totally lost respect for you, not only you did not know the full picture, you have no fucking idea of the historical facts behind it. you have no fucking idea how he was isolated by the scholar community then which was then based on church, how he was being labelled as insane by his own teachers in his university when he published his full paper. Even his religious wife was against him publishing the paper. Connected to the royal family? Its because of his teacher, EVERYONE pulled out support for him when the paper was out.

you are really a conman to the core to discredit him this way with all these fucking lies. everyone can go search themselves who is telling the truth and facts here. so this is really the IQ of xtain dog. i am really amazed. Not only you are suffering from delusion, you are lying through your teeth.

NO PEER REVIEWING? I FUCK YOU, HE PUSH BACK HIS PUBLICATION ALMOST 15 TO 20 YEARS (HE WENT INTO DETAIL STUDY) LATER BECAUSE ALL HIS PEERS SAY, YOU NEED DETAIL FULL PAPER TO PUBLISH THIS REVOLUTIONAL CLAIM AND THEORY. IF YOU DON'T KNOW A SHIT ABOUT PEER REVIEWING PROCESS, KEEP YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT. FOR I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ZERO PUBLICATION UNDER A JOURNAL IN YOUR NAME.

U this gong chee bye really, head not so big still want to wear that hat

stick to your pri 8 topic, this is way over your head for your thick skull has zero room for facts and history. only fairy tales in bible where snake and donkey can talk seems like facts to you.

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4_TbkFPAcqM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LET EVERYONE SEE WHO IS LYING HERE AND WHO IS NOT

WHO IS THE FUCK UP HERE THAT IS TWISTING HISTORICAL FACTS

DUN KNN TELL ME BBC HERE IS TWISTING THE FACT. MOTHER FUCKING YOU LAN JIAO LIAR

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

..... how he was being labelled as insane by his own teachers in his university when he published his full paper. Even his religious wife was against him publishing the paper. Connected to the royal family? Its because of his teacher, EVERYONE pulled out support for him when the paper was out......

NO PEER REVIEWING? .......BECAUSE ALL HIS PEERS SAY.....

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

I need to thank you this time....there is no better words to label Charles Darwin than the word "insane'. He indeed is. How could he come out with such theory just be observing wildlife....This is no different from an insane person to tell you that "eagle was evolved from parrot because over time, the beak of the parrot was straightened so that the bird could survive better....this is what survival of the fittest supposed to be, the natural selection." Did eagle evolved from parrot...or parrot from eagle...why they have different types of beaks? Can you really form theory out of these differences ? Sorry, I may make up this story but that was primarily the basis in which Charles Darwin did (plus other wildlife, including plants and marine life). He compared the differences of the different specied and came out with this useless theory of evolution. I think only people equally insane can come to the same conclusion.

Connected with Royal Family....I didn't make it up....Charles Darwin family was close relatives of the British Royal family. In addition, the family were very wealthy and well-connected - both within and outside the Royal Family. The fact that he was invited to serve in the HMS Beagle, a Royal Navy ship said alot of his connection. You think any Tom, Dick and Harry can be invited if you were not well-connected somehow, someway with the Royal family? Use your commonsense.

Given the prestigious private life of Charles Darwin and his family, what he said, even it was not completey true, would almost be treated like 'Gospel Truth.' That was how you all ended up accepting his useless theory!

And peer review...who were they???? Can you name any?

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

dear scientist (???) rojak,

i need to thank you this time....there is no better words to label charles darwin than the word "insane'. He indeed is. How could he come out with such theory just be observing wildlife....this is no different from an insane person to tell you that "eagle was evolved from parrot because over time, the beak of the parrot was straightened so that the bird could survive better....this is what survival of the fittest supposed to be, the natural selection." did eagle evolved from parrot...or parrot from eagle...why they have different types of beaks? Can you really form theory out of these differences ? Sorry, i may make up this story but that was primarily the basis in which charles darwin did (plus other wildlife, including plants and marine life). He compared the differences of the different specied and came out with this useless theory of evolution. I think only people equally insane can come to the same conclusion.

Connected with royal family....i didn't make it up....charles darwin family was close relatives of the british royal family. In addition, the family were very wealthy and well-connected - both within and outside the royal family. The fact that he was invited to serve in the hms beagle, a royal navy ship said alot of his connection. You think any tom, dick and harry can be invited if you were not well-connected somehow, someway with the royal family? Use your commonsense.

Given the prestigious private life of charles darwin and his family, what he said, even it was not completey true, would almost be treated like 'gospel truth.' that was how you all ended up accepting his useless theory!

And peer review...who were they???? Can you name any?

hello hello, chee bye kia the answer is all in that 1 hour video, who are the one that peer review it, who are those that he spoke to and consult, and who were there when he published this paper all is in that video. HIS OWN FUCKING TEACHERS, AND FRIENDS, THOSE THAT AGREES AND DISAGEES WITH HIM REVIEWED IT. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASON WHY HE DECIDED TO DELAY OFFICIALLY RELEASE HIS THEORY, BECAUSE AS ADVISED BY MANY OF HIS PEERS THEN, HE HAS TO DO A DETAIL STUDY AND MAKE A FULL PAPER ON IT. HE WANTED TO DO IT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO WIN OVER HIS OWN TEACHER THAT WAS AGAINST HIS THEORY. ARE YOU REALLY SO DUMB NOT TO CATCH THIS IT? I THINK THIS THE 2ND TIME I SAID IT. DUMB FUCK, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HAD HAPPEN THEN.

CLICK AND WATCH THE VIDEO SEE WHO IS LYING HERE, FUCKING CHEE BYE. CLICK ALSO LAZY? GO FUCK YOURSELF. LET EVERYONE SEE IT, WHO IS THE ONE DISTORTING HISTORICAL FACT HERE. THIS VERY MUCH SHOWS YOUR INTEGRITY, WHICH I HAVE PROVEN FROM PAST RECORD = 0.

Watch also never watch talk so much cock. All these can be easily found in any books anyway, this simply shows one thing, u never even read his book b4. All your bloody info is just from your own brainwashed xtainity websites.

You finish watching and go fucking realised how many factual error you have in your own fucking account of his life.

You know why i did not even bother answering you when you say he based his own theory of it just based on his sailing trip? Because that itself is a factual error. You fucking underestimate what his work was. I simply want to amaze myself how many times you going to repeat that. I bet it makes you wonder why i said that. A clue, why did he delay in publishing his result for almost 20 years, what did he do in this 20 years that make the whole community accept his theory.

you fucking cannot even get your facts right in the very fucking place. you know you are a fucking joke? you remember mentioning you have a doctor relative cannot be bothered talking to you? i think i can understand why, cos your level of intelligence cannot hold a simple proper discussion. all your facts are twisted and wrong with a lot of your own wrong interpretations.

in another words, you are just a dumb fuck

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

.....hello hello, chee bye kia the answer is all in that 1 hour video, who are the one that peer review it, who are those that he spoke to and consult, and who were there when he published this paper all is in that video. HIS OWN ....... TEACHERS, AND FRIENDS, THOSE THAT AGREES AND DISAGEES WITH HIM REVIEWED IT.......brainwashed......A clue, why did he delay in publishing his result for almost 20 years, what did he do in this 20 years that make the whole community accept his theory.......

....... you remember mentioning you have a doctor relative cannot be bothered talking to you?...../QUOTE]


Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

So sad that you couldn't remember what was said here so recently and yet you want to tell people about Charles Darwin's useless findings 150 years ago! You got the fact wrong....I have mentioned that I have a close relative who is a doctor...a O&G specialist and each time I met him, he always like to share with me the biology of fetus development. To him, this is such a great miracle and even as a doctor himself, he couldn't understand how could this be evolved by natural selection. It has to be planned by a supreme designer. So, please get it right....Your brain is failing????

Technically, the theory of evolution in fact does put people into two groups - those who disagree with him and those agree with him. The former group are people with clear sanity and the latter group, those who are brain-washed by his theory are those who have the loss the sense of sanity! So, which group are you in?

Yes....it took him a long time to publish the people....reason.....simple...he had to collect enough birds, plants and seashells and to fit them into his theory. This was his art of work, and give us a break, there was nothing scientific. It was just a pure piece of art work...nothing more and nothing less! It's truly a miracle that this piece of art work has managed to brainwash people and to conclude we were evolved rather than being created by a Supreme Designer/Creator - God! Even with modern science, yet no one can prove with any convincing evidence that life was evolved and how could a collections of birds, plants, seashells could provide it!

Until now, no supporter if the theory of evolution dared to answer the question what was the actual meaning of 'transmutation' that Charles Darwin used (because the word 'mutation' is highly technical and cannot only be fully understood after the discovery of DNA). But, miraculously, people just accept this word without evening really know the meaning.

Remember, DNA is the only biological language and biological software known to date. It is not just a language but it has all the instructions to instruct each cell how to function. This knowledge was never known to Charles Darwin and his insane supporters. Had this knowledge been discovered earlier, the theory of evolution will never be written! So, please DON'T NAG AGAIN (DNA)....accept this scientific fact and you!

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

What the fuck has DNA got to do with his theory? WHY ARE YOU BRING THIS IN.

this shows one thing, YOU HAVE FUCKING NO IDEA WHAT HE PRESENT THAT TIME. YOU HAVE NO CLUE OF HIS BOOK, YOU HAVE FUCKING NO IDEA WHAT MADE HIM PRESENT THOSE IDEA.

GOD? CREATOR ? MY ASS! NO ONE DARE TO QUESTION? NO ONE DOUBT? FUCK YOU UNDERSTAND, TONS OF LEADERS IN ASTROPHYSICS HAS ALREADY THROW THAT CONCEPT INTO THE BIN DONKEY OF YEARS AGO. THIS SHOWS HOW OUTDATED YOU ARE. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FOR A SHIT HEAD LIKE YOU THAT BELIEVED IN A STUPID BOOK THAT IS AT LEAST 2000 YEARS OUTDATED

IN FACT THE STUDY OF DNA FURTHER CONFIRM THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. IS ONLY DUMB FUCK LIKE YOU CANNOT GET THE IDEA. I HAVE ONCE BRING IT UP VIA USING VIRUS AS AN EXAMPLE, OF COS DUMB FUCK LIKE YOU CANNOT GET IT AND THROW SMOKE SCREEN AND HIDE. NOW YOU WANT TO HIT ON THIS AGAIN. THE MUTATION RATE OF THE DNA CORRESPONDS WELL TO THE EVOLUTION THEORY AND FOSSIL FINDING OF HUMAN EARLY ANCESTORS.

USING THE PRESENCE OF DNA TO DEFEND THE BIBLE? I LET YOU FUCK THE WALL AGAIN. THE EXISTENCE OF DNA AND ITS BEHAVIOUR FURTHER CONFIRM EVOLUTION THEORY.



"God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt."

Stephen Hawking


"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. "

Richard Feynman

KNOW WHO THE FUCK IS STEPHEN HAWKING and RICHARD FEYNMAN? NO ONE DARE TO QUESTION THE IDEA OF GOD? I FUCK YOU. THEY ARE THE GOD IN THE FIELD OF ASTROPHYSICS/PHYSICS, PARTICLE SCIENCE. THEY QUESTION AND REJECT THE CONCEPT OF GOD.

IF I WANT, I CAN LIST OUT TONS OF OTHER LEADER IN THE AREA OF ASTROPHYSICS THAT REJECTED THE CONCEPT OF GOD

FUCK YOUR LAN JIAO IDEA OF SPILLING RUBBISH THAT WE SCIENTISTS SUPPORT DELUSION IDEA. IN FACT I REACH OUT MY HAND AND TOUCH ON MY TEXTBOOK ON QUANTUM MECHANIC, I HAVE LOST COUNT HOW MANY NAMES OF LEADER IN PARTICLE PHYSICS REJECT THE CONCEPT OF YOUR GOD, YES YOUR DOG.

NO ONE DARE? FUCK YOU CARRY ON DREAMING, WE HAVE ALREADY DUMB YOUR GOD IN THE BIN AND SHIT ON IT



http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-02/...e-abrahamic-faiths-divine-creator?_s=PM:WORLD

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

"Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest – and as scientists honesty is our precise duty – we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli


you fucking know who are they? THEY ALL REJECTED GOD.

IN MY FIELD, THEY ARE GOD. you DOG IS SHIT

 

[Psalm23]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

.....What ..... DNA got to do with his theory? ....."God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.....

THEY ARE THE GOD IN THE FIELD OF ASTROPHYSICS/PHYSICS, PARTICLE SCIENCE. THEY QUESTION AND REJECT THE CONCEPT OF GOD. .

Dear Scientist (???) Rojak,

DNA is the best scientific evidence that life cannot evolve from non-life. It has to be created or designed. All information must come from a mind. Furthermore DNA is not just randam information. It is a highly technical biological language/software that even the best scientists are trying to understand it. What they knew now is simply a tip of an iceberg! So, dear Scientist (???) Rojak, it's time you wake up and not be cheated and fooled by your up-to-now demigod - Charles Darwin.

Don't throw 'big' names.....for every one name you threw, there are at least five other scientists who proclaim their belief that God indeed exists. Examples of famous scientists who believed in God are: Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Ivan Panin. These people were 'gods' in their fields of study from physics, mathematics to astronomy. The never questioned the existence of God. They accepted this truth and scientists like Issac Newton and Ivan Panin spent decades of the lives studying the Bible. (Go to google and search of Bible Gematria and you will see the wonder of the Bible! If only you dare to take up this challenge...but first get unhallicinated with Charles Darwin.) The reason why some people including scientists reject God because they treated God as a 'concept'. God is not a concept. He is the Supreme Personal Being. Once you accept this you will accept that there is God is real. So, my advice to you: Don't treat God like a concept or a subject like maths, geography, biology, botany. Once you realise this, you will discover the presence of God.

Honestly speaking, my faith in not shape by these scientists. My faith in the existence of God, in Jesus is solely based on the most amazing book ever published - the Bible. Everything you want to know: about yourself, about others, about the world events (the past, the present, and the future) and certainly about God and His creation are written in this Book. You do not need to look further into DNA, into atoms, into plasma. Just read this Life-Giving Book and you will have all the answers.

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

AY FUCKER, IS YOU SAY WE DUN DARE TO REJECT THIS IDEA ONE. BESIDES, THOSE NAME YOU MENTIONED IS NOT CONSIDERED GOD IN THE FIELD OF PHYSICS/ASTROPHYSICS/CHEMISTRY. THEIR ERA IS LONG OVER, TONS OF THEIR LAW HAS BEING REPLACED BY MORE SOPHISTICATED AND IMPROVED VERSION. ALTHOUGH MANY STILL LEARN THEM IN BASIC LEVEL AS THEY ARE EASY. WHEN YOU QUOTE THOSE NAME I LAUGH LIKE FUCK. U COMPARED THOSE ANCIENT SCIENTIST TO OUR MODERN ONE? WHAT A JOKE

BESIDES THE REASON WHY I THROW ALL THESE NAME OUT TO FUCKING PROVE YOU WRONG THAT YOU SAY NONE OF US DARE TO STAND AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF DOG. IN FACT THERE ARE TONS OF MODERN SCIENTIST THAT OPENLY REJECT IT. JUST THAT YOU ARE TOO FUCKING BLIND TO SEE OR ACCEPT IT

"Furthermore DNA is not just randam information. It is a highly technical biological language/software that even the best scientists are trying to understand it. What they knew now is simply a tip of an iceberg! "

this just shows one thing, you have zero fucking idea how wasteful DNA is in storing our genetic coding. of the 10 of thousands to million of genetic material, only a mere fraction (forget the textbook value but i think less than 5 percent of the genome ) of it is really used for coding. the rest of it are being cut off and discarded. but when translating, the whole chunk is being replicated. u call this intelligent design HAHAHHAHA. if there is really a designer, that fucker is a fuck up programer that write chunk of rubbish in a fucking inefficient manner. ALL THESE ARE THE RESULT OF RANDOM ACCUMULATION OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS. FUCKTARDS LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU KNOW ABOUT INTRONS? EXTRONS? THEIR FUNCTION? I BET YOU DUN EVEN KNOW THIS SHIT, WHEN I SEE THIS STATEMENT I FUCKING LAUGH. THE VERY FACT THAT THERE IS A REGION OF INTRONS AND EXTRONS FURTHER PROVE THE RESULT OF MULTATION AND EVOLUTION. FUCKTARD LIKE YOU NEVER LEARN THIS IN SCH RIGHT? OF COS, YOU CANNOT EVEN PASS PSLE WHAT

DNA - god language? DUN MAKE ME LAUGH. u dun even know what is DNA, i bet you cannot even tell apart DNA from RNA and their respective function. uneducated dog like you making this statement really makes me laugh

say already, hat not so big, dun wear that hat. never study cannot study so be it, dun act smart talk about such topic as if you are expert when you know shit

WHO GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR FAITH, YOU WANT TO BE STUPID IS YOUR OWN FUCKING PROBLEM. I SAID LONG AGO, THE VERY REASON WHY I FUCK YOU HERE IS BECOS U ARE SPREADING STUPID FALSE INFORMATION, AND TALK AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS SCIENCE AND MISREPRESENTING IT LIKE NOW.

PEOPLE OF YOUR INTELLIGENCE CAN ONLY UNDERSTAND FAIRY TALES, I DUN BLAME YOU, SO BE IT GO FUCK YOURSELF IN ONE CORNER. SCIENCE IS NOT FOR EVERYONE, I CAN ACCEPT THAT. BUT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY A FUCK UP STUPID IDIOT UNEDUCATED FOOL LIKE TO ACT AS IF YOU HAVE A PHD IN THAT AREA AND TALK LIKE ONE.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY KNOW SHIT

 

[vamjok]

Re: Very Very Satisfied

Galileo Galilei <---FORCED by the church to reject the earth was round and the idea that earth rotates round the sun. he studied bible HAHHAHAHHAHAHA the church almost fucking burn him, he remain slient under house arrest thanks to fuckers like you. he hate fuckers like you. obviously you copy and paste from the net without thinking.

Ivan Panin<---who the fuck is he? you call him scientist?

THIS SHOWS ONE THING, YOU JUST CUT AND PASTE FROM THE NET. ALL THESE ARE NOT FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING