jsqaure99

true say, good example.
$ ^$ @8 q6 [$ F5 Gby the way all i wanna say is that article is very naive.
9 x" i2 |9 [- ?/ G& R6 U7 |  V& Ntrying to use our limited "smartness" to guess god's will.) d1 q0 |/ |7 @9 g
no offence but i think whoever wrote it is stupid and him/her WILL SEE.

jsqaure99

TO sk﹕' u- Y3 q+ Q: v: V. ~( `
NO OFFENCE
+ Z2 \2 K6 i0 e6 _  y0 V6 I但請問如果我整容整到同你一樣0 N% }! Z2 V' o
係咪DNA都會同你一樣呢
% a/ K6 r9 [& v% J9 f  e& MIMAGE又係咪解DNA呢1 I/ h" i" U# N1 i+ U, j3 E( Y
IMAGE又係咪淨係解樣呢7 h. l  a* }% Q9 x/ z  J) P
我唔知' Y0 U0 M* Z$ O  }- w
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‘﹐8 I6 k2 m, k* `& w$ K0 J
會唔會覺得未夠班呢
2 t8 b0 J& k, K, S7 S人不能夠解釋神﹐就話神係假﹐係心靈上既托附. m' `( T" c3 W' }( h0 N2 T' ]# Z
但係而家連挪亞方舟都慍到喇  P1 Q1 c% `( C
又點解釋
: I. W) ]8 [$ ]/ E# [0 K- L5 `* o! V: A! ~/ A1 S8 r; k1 e
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  \! l+ R2 T+ v: [, e0 Q. s
以為係大茶飯﹐點知連點CONTACT個網主都慍唔到
  k, E, F7 s/ [7 y" `3 `  Y家常便飯有興趣去睇下佢既無知喇 .\

jsqaure99

反面教材+ f: P, A) u9 V0 _2 d& w
講得好5 A$ O* d, ]! T* D. W3 l6 L
仲有D潑婦罵街FEEL添

jsqaure99

哈哈
/ A' ?5 r0 o/ K  O我個人比夠口臭唔好意思

jsqaure99

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-4-7 07:01 PM:
% o3 u* C1 k! Y. v+ l( s9 b& U/ _- q/ \  I# p7 T

% ], b3 }, B' l. B* _  b証據...係要証實左既先叫証據5 N0 C8 B- m1 M

, V  v% i; g) `# l; l/ b4 s4 @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!

8 E+ b% c9 L+ `7 V9 Y. f5 S
$ S9 T2 ~' Y+ \3 `
+ A! u( q. P8 ]6 B$ 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﹗