jsqaure99

true say, good example.
2 X( a0 b* p, ~" g$ ~by the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.
0 B7 i- k/ L0 H6 {% _7 otrying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.
+ z- C* R* S+ t* L! K, [no offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕
: I, G. {' Z; ~8 T) [NO OFFENCE 5 ?$ E  Y+ {/ O
但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣
; }! U/ P: u8 u8 j/ n6 ?0 v係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢# }# p+ K) ^0 X! t# x+ G
IMAGE又係咪解DNA呢
& q6 g4 @/ N$ t& a6 AIMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢
2 M; [: }0 g7 z我唔知2 K; M, ~# g6 K( ?  f8 N
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‘﹐
; h1 q2 y1 n" Q) z4 X# ~- N會唔會覺得未夠班呢
5 `" ^, \; ]8 o3 q5 f7 t9 g人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附/ |5 Q- R% q) W# U
但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇) v! \) I. ^  ~4 A, d
又點解釋
' s1 L* F0 f: w1 J% J5 D
, E7 l; ?0 l% }' \! N/ 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
6 m$ |$ z* j7 s$ w$ D6 l以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到7 @/ N9 W) {4 h7 J
家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材1 D- j* s- E' U3 l0 L
講得好1 o; l1 h& j+ O  H
仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈
2 @+ Y; Y  S9 U' _% d8 H我個人比夠口臭唔好意思

jsqaure99

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-4-7 07:01 PM:
+ v8 T& f) @, }: W# K
, R* o, l9 X$ L! D
8 B" q7 g: }8 t, q: Q! O6 q4 \! f9 K証據...係要証實左既先叫証據
" F3 K- q% D9 \, ]9 s; k# J- k* }2 d+ i* m+ [) S+ p8 e
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!

4 c# d% `+ N) W) ]

9 m% `7 S6 y5 ?& J) }6 T7 \  g! D$ l1 c: I; F- q
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﹗