jsqaure99

true say, good example.
" M8 s& T) u; N+ e$ v. dby the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.6 g' V( G% U4 v6 [
trying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.
5 w1 T" _' f1 {1 _% z5 {3 _8 Hno offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕0 g$ w6 _  w5 Y- a* P6 ~7 C$ j% O
NO OFFENCE ( D4 w: ]0 L+ N  p
但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣
2 k% b, l8 r5 M( w- h係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢( z, V, u2 y( M! S: `& }
IMAGE又係咪解DNA呢
6 L# ]# t1 k. e8 B+ D6 dIMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢! i2 L3 D5 ]$ F; _9 t# F1 h
我唔知
! ^1 m; U1 C% A; n1 d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‘﹐0 y8 v& e/ R6 y' m
會唔會覺得未夠班呢
+ y1 A- h/ n1 f  F. G. q, b人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附
3 q/ n" r" A1 F. ~: m但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇
- g: O6 y! h/ g' D% e. r又點解釋
' P9 {  I0 c; U% t0 |) R+ M$ I' M* D4 D; l3 I5 P! C* ~5 E( D
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2 y/ p) b3 D: B, ]) l0 M) @6 b2 b
以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到
* p& @2 l5 M. E4 B; Z+ F/ D5 j  y9 R家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材
4 {% @. e; e2 f: c; h: v講得好! ^3 |+ b1 i& }
仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈! F: F0 t: {5 v+ 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:
/ P/ Z1 |1 x1 |- ]1 _0 V7 I# N- ?

! X+ S& Q4 {0 S1 L! }1 t証據...係要証實左既先叫証據) f) p* R( B$ k

- e3 {! t* P0 e  c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!

: k4 F- E& Z6 I: ~

0 ]  [( \/ L4 q- l; ~
$ Z4 ]6 z: ^8 p  F" U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﹗