jsqaure99

true say, good example.) T3 J; ^% D9 c$ U
by the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.4 D6 h+ I% I  J8 L0 E  `: k
trying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.
* j$ Y+ x- L3 {$ Z, nno offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕! ?# u6 O9 _* E
NO OFFENCE
. G! p' N  o9 x. v8 U但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣
& d  Z* ?1 E& S8 I, L係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢* g2 x6 W+ F4 i( F) G' `1 M
IMAGE又係咪解DNA呢
4 e' H2 w' Q' c  r' l6 SIMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢( K# C3 i5 d5 @5 ^! v  \" v4 \
我唔知- l. \9 v5 x8 Q
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‘﹐
& a" ^4 F8 L5 ]% i; O( E- p0 }會唔會覺得未夠班呢, ^" u+ a7 ~% O/ s0 ]. O  U. K
人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附; _6 y7 P: {8 Q" t# X
但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇9 k, y; B. s( u: V
又點解釋
, l) v! v! ]: N3 E& }1 p% e& _) D/ Q# y" [) h" X* C- Q4 t
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4 Z4 [% E! E9 G  F+ ]1 F
以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到
1 R& v9 k# y- O: C& R9 z家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材
+ t% B, j0 D* B( O6 }  G: B講得好
1 V+ A8 _& f. H3 U; Q! D仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈
: ?* ~3 H, E0 {& z( r. p: _' }) D我個人比夠口臭唔好意思

jsqaure99

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-4-7 07:01 PM:: a3 R2 l+ c+ q5 I/ w% a
( N, y$ M" v5 y' U+ P
2 p/ a% t! r+ o5 y1 \4 e9 _  c! f
証據...係要証實左既先叫証據
1 p/ R6 N9 e+ Q5 e* F' q& [- x
5 r/ O( O9 q7 m' ]5 A/ q) Q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!

9 m& N2 M% P. k; b1 w" N/ J
; o0 d- w* y' |5 Y5 a3 q; G
3 w% O) s  X5 {! Y- w4 {
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﹗