jsqaure99

true say, good example.; U) d) }* e4 p# e5 w3 r
by the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.+ Q. P- e: n7 t5 D7 d. |- S& U
trying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.
/ k2 g2 N" s2 |# Vno offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕% f+ X6 @; ?9 V# I( U7 f4 v, a9 |
NO OFFENCE 4 W, }( t8 L4 w% R8 E9 A: s
但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣
% ^! K3 V! r3 W( X& h( F: O係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢) c. l/ ]4 G! e& u% {1 X
IMAGE又係咪解DNA呢
6 n* ]5 d$ D: ]; bIMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢5 x4 a) A/ |7 I- m( p2 `8 w) i
我唔知
3 M* C0 s" j" m但係人用現今不完整既科學﹐好似DNA既理論黎攻激神既”創世‘﹐1 b1 N4 W, R% I& R4 I& N* K
會唔會覺得未夠班呢
% X1 `1 f: a- W, M; R5 ]6 i0 Q人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附8 J" x! L% e  P/ p1 Z
但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇, Q) ]$ ]2 D, @% ]0 ^- o) X# Y, y  k
又點解釋& c# z3 t1 |) n/ U: d9 |" c
1 k- q7 D  T1 ?* x
仲有果個網址我已經去過﹐寫網人只係一個唔識解經既人(什至忽略左好多好多既DETAIL)﹐佢既網址簡直不值一看。

jsqaure99

我就敗興而回& `1 H0 |- a( }- ~: C  |) ~/ \
以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到' S, P3 q# L; U, e7 ~' E
家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材" }- Y+ I: b8 v" Z: e" p1 A
講得好
' z- ~9 F( V& Z) B; V仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈
: _5 y% o, V! V" p% @0 E- g我個人比夠口臭唔好意思

jsqaure99

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-4-7 07:01 PM:/ |- a7 D2 Z* z9 H) @) o

  o9 W, S1 z  w1 S9 i+ u
3 }7 l3 ]0 W) @証據...係要証實左既先叫証據! Y: z0 e- i4 T. n
) y5 V0 j& q. Y; q4 r
用眼去睇下個隆就話係...又唔做下"碳14"確定下年分??? 見到d對自己有利既所謂証據就認屎認屁認唔切...悲哀!

! L+ q1 X! b4 W4 D0 ^
7 I6 L0 ^" T% e0 {! {+ ?; D

/ `2 S; ?. R9 F$ y+ d唔係想話你﹐不個你經常用錯既EXAMPLE同經證實既謠言黎BACKUP自己會唔會唔好意思﹖當然大家希望多些人發言﹐但請你先做RESEARCH﹗