jsqaure99

true say, good example.1 d$ Z5 ]! a1 o8 ~, l1 \
by the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.. }7 M1 f, ?$ n# ^. S. w" |
trying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.- C, j) Q  s! w, u
no offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕, T/ L- A+ _  b$ B
NO OFFENCE
" R3 A5 p$ R+ a, Q  v但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣( y6 S1 r1 a7 z/ u. [% w
係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢
( i! F4 u& N1 KIMAGE又係咪解DNA呢2 P  H, Y4 w- c* ]+ R
IMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢
: s+ j# h( u, b6 Q# t我唔知
; D( }* q; X0 \* I; _, _1 H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‘﹐
4 e* K8 S: ]& U( F0 D會唔會覺得未夠班呢- i: i. ^/ f4 G2 H$ s
人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附* m8 X: D& F( K$ `$ F
但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇8 ~; j" w* P: M+ ]. z
又點解釋
2 N9 s( z2 G; c9 o' @% o
; t: Y2 Z5 Q" p; [+ }) L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 L& z2 R. T- d$ [以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到
8 Z. \: M& D' G2 H家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材$ Z1 b1 I6 J& o5 f  v
講得好6 l- {  R$ {, R, I
仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈
7 [4 A# i3 N1 \4 p' W  y我個人比夠口臭唔好意思

jsqaure99

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-4-7 07:01 PM:& a1 _) I& \8 y3 _4 B: q
; {5 |: P0 l7 a  o/ V& u) n( i' S
5 z* l  v7 f* G. V* _; |. k# u: N
証據...係要証實左既先叫証據; m' y! _& f" l, V

$ S: Z3 }5 s, s8 n& ]) M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!

0 B. `3 C3 U- V% @
3 ?- A$ v# d/ G: Y- W

% x9 \4 S0 G& U  f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﹗