20140109

一位「華人遺傳學家」如是說

有朋友轉貼了一篇高皓正的臉書貼文,內容是一位「華人遺傳學家」關於同性戀的「訪問」,非常簡短,內容似是而非,符合高皓正「科學」貼文的一貫水平。我在網上隨便搜尋了一下,便發覺高皓正的文章並非原作,乃抄自林以諾的臉書,除了斬頭截尾,一字沒改。

林以諾沒有形容該篇短文為「訪問」,只是說「在三藩市講道,有機會認識一位華人遺傳學家,於是把握機會向他請教」。雖然這位「華人遺傳學家」不是接受正式的訪問,但他的答客問仍然明顯帶著權威的語氣,很配合他那「遺傳學家」的專家身份;可惜的是,他的說話內容卻不禁令人疑他的專業水平。

林以諾先問:「香港有許多人認為同性戀是遺傳(天生)的,甚至有普通科醫生、精神科醫生及心理學家支持這種看法,你從遺傳學如何回應?」

這第一問已有不妥之處。在「遺傳」後括住「天生」,是不是表示兩者等同?雖然遺傳genetic必是天生(being born with),但天生卻不一定是遺傳啊!(下文會較詳細談這一點)此外,林以諾只提普通科醫生、精神科醫生及心理學家,然後問「你從遺傳學如何回應?」,是暗示這位「華人遺傳學家」可以代表遺傳學說話,暗示其他遺傳學家會同意,而不會跟這些「普通科醫生、精神科醫生及心理學家」一般見識。事實上,大多數遺傳學家都不會同意這位「華人遺傳學家」對林以諾的回答,因為他說的不但有錯,而且粗疏之極;無論如何,就算只有一部份遺傳學家會不同意,林以諾的問法已屬誤導。

果然,「華人遺傳學家」和應林以諾:「這個問題涉及遺傳學,普通科醫生,精神科,甚至心理學家都沒有這方面的專業知識。」然後以他的「專業知識」提出以下質疑:「同性戀者不會生育下一代,又何來遺傳呢?」

這是一個老問題,已有人提出不同的解答,例如 Richard Dawkins



當然,這些都是猜想,但至少說明這個難題有討論餘地,不容「華人遺傳學家」一錘定音。此外,「華人遺傳學家」可能已沒有緊貼最新研究的發展,所以不知道有研究結果支持同性戀有表觀遺傳性epigenetic--- 遺傳基因不是唯一因素,母體的子宮環境亦有重要影響;雖然如此,同性戀仍算是天生的。這個理論不但可以用來解答以上難題,也解釋了為何有些同卵雙胞胎其中一個為同性戀者、另一個則不是(超簡單地說,是因為他們在子宮裏受到不同的刺激):



林以諾似乎要顯示他對遺傳學和演化論並非完全無知,追問下去:「那麼,有沒有可能是基因突變?」

「華人遺傳學家」這樣回答:「若基因突變,則是一個極重大的突變,人類自懂遺傳學以來,沒有發現過生物可以有那麼大的基因突變。」

這個回答裏隱藏的理論問題不少,恐怕非我所能澄清,如要澄清,也非長篇大論不可。這裏我只能指出三點:一、量度基因突變(mutation)的大小,有不同的標準,不能簡單地說某一基因突變是否「重大」;二、假如同性戀與遺傳基因無關,他說的「那麼大的基因突變」根本就不知所云;三、如果所謂「重大的突變」是指由沒有同性戀傾向變成有同性戀傾向,他便可能是混淆了基因型(genotype)和表型(phenotype)。

「華人遺傳學家」還補充說:「再者,相信遺傳的人,多半相信進化論,進化理論基本是物競天擇,適者生存,在進化過程中,生物不會容許自己擁有不能繁殖下一代的基因存在,因為生存才是生物最基本的素求 [sic]。」

從這幾句看來,「華人遺傳學家」一是誤解演化論,一是故意歪曲,因為認識演化論的人都知道,演化過程完全不由生物自己作主,演化亦沒有固定方向,所以根本沒有「生物不會容許自己擁有」某一基因這回事(可能有人會認為他只是表達不清,但對演化論有正確理解的人是絕不會這樣表達的)。此外,這裏還有一個概念混淆:假如真的有同性戀基因,那也不會是「不能繁殖下一代的基因」,因為同性戀並不會令人失去繁殖能力。

因此,我對這位「華人遺傳學家」真的一點信心也沒有。

87 則留言:

  1. 「華人遺傳學家」會不會是那「美籍華裔科學家兼佈道家」吳宣倫?

    題外話,此人學歷甚可疑。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 剛 google 過,果然可疑之極。不過,他沒有自稱為遺傳學家。

      刪除
  2. On the video, Richard Dawkins wasn't so sure himself on what he was saying. Obviously from his tone, he was bluffing.

    - -
    Some People who don't believe in the Bible, talk against the Bible while not 100% understand the whole Bible.

    Then there are People who believe in the Bible, talk about the Bile while not 100% understand the whole Bible.

    Both of these people are stupid, including Dr. Richard Dawkins.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. i.e. We are all stupid.

      刪除
    2. As I said in my essay, those are just possible explanations.

      刪除
    3. To the original anon commenter:

      Some people show off by writing English sentences as if they understood English grammar 100%, but they don't have a clue. These people are ignorant but they may not know it.

      To the anon commenter who wrote "i.e. We are all stupid":

      What you said ("all") doesn't follow logically from the words of the other anon commenter ("Both of these people are stupid"). Care to clarify? If you are the very person who said "both of these people are stupid", then by that speech act you are yourself illogical, ignorant, and--I might suspect--stupid.

      刪除
    4. I am ignorant in every way. I know it and I admit it. I don't pretend to be the opposite of it. I don't know the English grammar 100% as it evolves almost everyday. Therefore you were 100% correct. By saying that, you are proven to be logically incorrect. Good for you, as you have proven yourself to be stupid in the logical field.

      刪除
    5. >> As I said in my essay, those are just possible explanations.

      An honest scientist would always say ahead before giving any explanations and doubts that we don't know / we cannot confirm / we cannot conclude as yet this or that. Comparing 1st and 2nd clips, the scientist on 2nd clip is more honest.

      When "possible" seems to be impossible, then that "possible" could be misleading for a purpose.

      刪除
  3. 多謝王教授在此再次替大家破繆抗邪。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. If everyone in the world understands that we are all just a bunch of idiots, our world would be a very peaceful world.

      刪除
    2. 只是認為有澄清的作用,所以便寫了。

      刪除
  4. Both my wife and I are very right handed but my son is left handed. It explains. What sort of expert this person is.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I'm wrong because left handed people can pass on the gene to future generations. alternate example is there are genetically related diseases which kill children before their adulthood. These diseases still exist.

      刪除
  5. "Cures" for an illness that does not exist

    http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703

    回覆刪除
  6. This 「華人遺傳學家」was in fact 林以諾 himself

    回覆刪除
  7. 林以諾's article obviously tries to emphasize that 周一嶽 "醫生" isn't in 遺傳學專科 but in 骨科。

    >> "生物不會容許自己擁有不能繁殖下一代的基因存在"

    It uses very similar word tone as in many text explaining or using 「演化論」。Thus it is an intrinsic problem with 「演化論」。

    >> "假如真的有同性戀基因,那也不會是「不能繁殖下一代的基因」,因為同性戀並不會令人失去繁殖能力。"

    This statement may be logically true for human species (when people rationally produce offspring despite of their sexual orientation). But it fails when it is applied to other animals in the nature. Thus this statement is not applicable in general scope.

    (Plus, one may argue that such people should be classified as "bisexual" instead of "homosexual". i.e. Is there such a thing as "bisexual genes"?)

    2nd clip shows that it might not be "genes" but "hormones" that was at play.

    (If this is true, then since many crimes could be explained as "hormone-driven", should they also be excused?)

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. are you suggesting homosexuality is a crime? are you equating gays to thieves, rapers, and murderers? excuse me?

      刪除
    2. In ancient time, in some places, definitely homosexuality was a crime. In certain countries, homosexuality is still a crime nowadays.

      You are lucky to be living in where you are, which also gives you the freedom of speech. But it doesn't provide you the right to twist other people's words for your purpose, and to make you sound more righteous than others.

      Do you imply that 孌童癖 and rapes aren't hormone-driven but genes-driven? And are you suggesting that 孌童癖 and rapes aren't crimes.

      According to the Bible, homosexuality is no better than murder, ... murdering one's own soul for pleasures of the flesh, lying to oneself that everything is in right order, keeping whatever that is not appropriate to be owned.

      Thus, you are not excused. If you have good reasons, spell them out and lay them flat for everyone to see, rather than picking and twisting other people's words to serve your ego. Otherwise, it would only show how inadequate you are in defending what you are believing in.

      刪除
    3. 爭取人權今天在某些國家也是一種罪行,可被槍斃或「犬刑」。

      孌童癖不是只是同性戀者會有,異性戀者也會有,故此孌童癖並非性取向問題。

      宗教只是一種信仰,信仰是自由的,你可以相信某種宗教,也可以不相信那種宗教。你可以相信Bible,也可以不相信Bible。
      因此,Bible不能夠用作說明問題的理據/理由。


      刪除
    4. "性取向" is "Sexuality", and it is not related to "爭取人權". Thus what is the point of mentioning "爭取人權"?

      "宗教" helps build up our current society model. If one may ignore its existence, then obviously one may also ignore history, law and arts. But can you? Obviously no.

      Obviously you need to define your term "性取向" as VERY obviously it is different from mine. Continuing a discussion with undefined terms is quite a waste of time.

      刪除
    5. //"性取向" is "Sexuality", and it is not related to "爭取人權"//??
      How naive you are! If you are in Russia without “correct” Sexual orientation, you’ll be put in jail.

      //"宗教" helps build up our current society model. //??
      Do you want Taliban with Islamic fundamentalism to "help build up our current society model" in HongKong?

      //Obviously you need to define your term "性取向" as VERY obviously it is different from mine.//
      You don't know what is "Sexual orientation" and that's why you are wasting us time!

      Please see this and don't waste us more time: (and pls see if you can find YOUR word "desire" in the definition of "Sexual orientation")

      http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

      刪除
    6. UN should hire you. Ha.ha.ha.

      刪除
  8. >> 因此,Bible不能夠用作說明問題的理據/理由。

    正是!宗教絕不能取代邏輯理性及對人權和正義的思考,王教授經常要寫辨明是非曲直,以求破謬抗邪的文章,顯然不是沒有原因的。盲信的華人還真多,這裡的很多留言就是個代表。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Then what is wrong with "孌童癖", "孌獸癖", "打野戰", "隨地吐痰", "燒膠" , "吸拿水", etc. when you are not practically involved in or get affected by them directly ? Should they be all legalized? Don't bullshit me with your lies when you use the term "盲信", as obviously you are the one who is blinded by your knowledge.

      刪除
    2. //Then what is wrong with "孌童癖", "孌獸癖", "打野戰", "隨地吐痰", "燒膠" , "吸拿水", etc.//
      Do "孌童癖", "孌獸癖", "打野戰", "隨地吐痰", "燒膠" , "吸拿水, etc." relate to only the people with certain Sexual orientation?
      If what you saying are not related to Sexual orientation at all, then you are making more fallacy, again!
      And, you are wasting us time again.

      刪除
    3. People could also be genes-driven with "孌童癖", "孌獸癖", "打野戰", "隨地吐痰", "燒膠" , "吸拿水, etc." , if homosexuality could be genes-driven. Since homosexuality is such a big topic, why not deal with legalization of ""打野戰" or "隨地吐痰".

      Your only skill is to pick and twist on other people's words during discussion. Without providing valid evidence, there is no point to listen to your "arguments", as there are none.

      刪除
    4. //People could also be genes-driven with "孌童癖", "孌獸癖", "打野戰", "隨地吐痰", "燒膠" , "吸拿水, etc." , if homosexuality could be genes-driven.......//

      Your only skill is to put unrelated topics together and argue with fallacy.

      "Genes-driven" behaviors and Crime are unrelated topics because whether having genes-driven or hormone-driven behaviors are not necessary committing Crime.

      i.e. you have sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend, are you committing crime?
      It could be Yes or could be No, it depends on the age and the desire on both of you, etc.
      i.e. if one is under age, you may commit "孌童癖" crime; if she/he doesn’t want to, you may commit rape crime however, it simply unrelated to whether it's genes-driven or hormone-driven.

      Do you understand?

      You are making fallacies and fallacies, "there is no point to listen to your "arguments", as there are none."

      刪除
    5. If you really know logical fallacies, you would at least be honest and not making lies during discussion. If you really want to find the Truth so as to decided which side to support for the homosexuality issue, you would take up a different attitude. Obviously you are not honest and you are not trying to see different aspects of the same issue, there is no point to continue the current discussion.

      [That's why religion (particularly Christianity) is an important pillar in a good & civilized society, as it expects the believers to be honest in every aspects of life.]

      刪除
    6. You constantly accuse other making lies and you even scare to leave a name! Can you provide any evidence that can prove your accuse?

      Your only skill is to accuse other making lies without any proven in order to cover up your ignorance.
      "....as it expects the believers to be honest in every aspects of life" however, your bad attitude gave me an impression that perhaps your religion makes you had such dishonesty.

      刪除
    7. You said that kids had sexual desire... A lie is a lie is a lie... So why waste time to discuss with a person who is not honest and keeps moving the target(s) ?

      刪除
    8. //You said that kids had sexual desire... A lie is a lie is a lie... //

      You yelling could not cover your lies.

      I always said "Sexual Orientation", "sexual desire" is YOUR words.

      It's obviously that you intended to twist what I said and keep putting your words in my mouth.

      Such behavior had proven that actually you are the big liar and maybe that's why you are so afraid to leave a name on your post!

      You are the real "盲信“of your religion.


      刪除
    9. //....keeps moving the target(s) ?//

      My target(s) -- discrimination on "Sexual Orientation" never moved, it's you wanted to move by putting your own words "sexual desire" into "Sexual Orientation".

      You did that likely by your ignorance or/and by your "盲信“ of your religion.

      刪除
    10. When you don't speak of facts for seeking the truth, there is nothing more to talk about.

      刪除
    11. If you what to know the facts and seeking the turth, pls see this and stop saying your emty words:

      http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      刪除
    12. From : http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      It says:

      "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence."

      and

      "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

      Obviously scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天". And since the cause isn't conclusive, there is no strong evidence to support some people's claim that their homosexuality was "天生" (thus genes-driven).

      Because of this, I do not understand why you kept arguing against my standpoints previously. So don't waste my time any more when you cannot honestly deal with such a complex issue involving so many people in many aspects, when I even excluded putting "religion" into my arguments for your benefits.

      刪除
    13. //"According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation......"//

      It's "for adult sexual orientation", what I was said was just for a feeling of an earlier age, it's just an indistinct feeling at that age.
      ---------------------------------------------------

      //Obviously scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天". //

      APA had said clearly that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual......"

      It obviously doesn't mean that "scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天"."

      You need to Stop putting your own words into others mouth. Your behavior obviously is dishonest. It's a bad attitude in discussion. You obviously is the one that wasting us time.

      刪除
    14. "And since the cause isn't conclusive, there is no strong evidence to support some people's claim that their homosexuality was "天生" (thus genes-driven). "

      becomes yours

      "It obviously doesn't mean that "scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天"."

      So who is not being honest?!

      刪除
    15. I said "it's just an indistinct feeling at that age". I never said it's "天生" (thus genes-driven). "

      And, you said it's "Obviously scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天".

      "So who is not being honest?!"

      刪除
    16. You have very serious problem in logics.

      刪除
    17. APA said : "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons......, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude......".
      After this long sentence finished with full stop, then the other sentence: "Many think....; most people.....".
      Are the "Many" & "most people" representing "scientists"??

      Does APA mean "scientists strongly support the fact that sexual orientation is "後天""?

      You are not just "You have very serious problem in logics", you are simply making lies (driven by religion?).

      刪除
    18. The main issue is to determine if homosexuality could be "天生".

      No one will question whether prostitution takes place at "後天" and no one would think that it will possibly caused by "天生". Similarly, no one would doubt whether homosexual behavior could/couldn't be learnt in "後生". Thus the main issue is whether homosexual behavior could be caused by "天生".

      Whatever you may continue to say, you cannot hide the facts that you have been twisting the issue to create confusion, and you have very serious problem in logics.

      刪除
    19. //No one will question whether prostitution takes place at "後天" and no one would think that it will possibly caused by "天生". Similarly, no one would doubt whether homosexual behavior could/couldn't be learnt in "後生". //

      "homosexual" and heterosexual & bisexual are three categories of Sexual orientation;

      It's obviously that "Prostitution" is not "Sexual Orientation" at all and they are not "Similarly", how you can compare "orange" and "apple"???

      You are twisting the issue to create confusion and You really have very serious problem in logics!

      刪除
    20. Go learn your logic first. Homosexual behavior, heterosexual behavior and bisexual behavior all have to be learnt in "後天".

      By continuing this thread in your way, you are showing your stupidity.

      刪除
    21. 「What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
      There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; **most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation**.」
      (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx)

      You are igorance, stupidity and obviously, you are making lies.

      刪除
    22. "Prostitution" is not "Sexual Orientation" at all and they are not "Similarly",
      What's Your logic to compare "orange" and "apple" then concluded "Homosexual behavior, heterosexual behavior and bisexual behavior all have to be learnt in "後天".???

      刪除
    23. If kids can carry out without learning any of the homosexual behaviors, heterosexual behaviors or bisexual behaviors, then they are "天生" knowing those behaviors, like sucking milk from their mothers' breast. So name ONE kid who knew any of those behaviors at birth.

      The more you carry on this thread, the more stupidity you shows through your arguments twisting my words.

      You are claiming something that even the scientists and experts don't even have agreeable conclusion. And that is a big logical fallacy.

      刪除
    24. //If kids can carry out without learning any of the homosexual behaviors, heterosexual behaviors or bisexual behaviors, then they are "天生" knowing those behaviors, like sucking milk from their mothers' breast.....//

      Kids develop their sexual behaviors later on their matured age doesn't mean that they didn't carrying some factor(s) at birth.

      It's the same of like a plant, it didn't have any good looking at sprouting time however, it would develop a beautiful flower later on. It obviously doesn't mean that the plant has to learn from the other plants surrounding it then could develop a flower!

      You have very serious problem in logics!

      Go learn your logic first then you continue your bs.

      刪除
    25. "Kids develop their sexual behaviors later on their matured age doesn't mean that they didn't carrying some factor(s) at birth." And it doesn't mean that they DO carrying factor(s) at birth. Thus you have said NOTHING.

      Your "flower" example is totally wrong, as genes provides evidence for such factor. But for homosexuality, NO scientists has found such confirming and solid (genes-) evidence yet.

      So it is you who is shamelessly 癩皮 when you had already failed to provide any useful evidence to support your viewpoint. It is really you 自己攞 "價" 嚟丟.

      刪除
    26. SEE THIS AND 315 COMMENTS:

      http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/14/obama.homosexuality/


      刪除
    27. //If kids can carry out without learning any of the homosexual behaviors, heterosexual behaviors or bisexual behaviors, then they are "天生" knowing those behaviors, like sucking milk from their mothers' breast.//

      If you had been ever raising chickens before, you would know that the chickens came out from the eggs and grown in an environment that without cocks/hens to teach or learn any sexual behaviors, do you think those chickens would not know how to have sexual behaviors with other chickens when they grow to certain age?

      Of course not. They would have sexual behaviors when they grow to certain age with other chickens even no learning and no teaching by cocks/hens before.

      It proved that the chickens had carried sexual behavior factors when they came out from the eggs (inborn), otherwise how they could know and have sexual behaviors when grown up to certain age without learning & teaching by cocks/hens?

      I believed same thing in human, you can imagine if a group of kids that no one to teach them and no way they could learn sexual behaviors, do you think they would not know how to have sexual behaviors when they grew up to certain age?

      I don't think so. They would certainly know how to have sexual behaviors even no one teaches them and no learning before. And it could be most of them are heterosexual behaviors and rest of them could be homosexual or/and bisexual behaviors.

      Because sexual orientation is a continuous spectrum call "heterosexual–homosexual continuum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual-homosexual_continuum),
      If some people's sexual orientation were at the middle of the spectrum, those people's sexual orientation could be changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality or vice versa however,
      If those people's sexual orientation were far away from the middle of the spectrum, then they could not be changed.

      Maybe that's why some homosexual people could be changed at later on and some people couldn't.

      刪除
    28. 又 back to Square One AGAIN... 嘥真係氣兼嘥時間、嘥精神。

      刪除
    29. "嘥真係氣兼嘥時間、嘥精神" proven You are dump & religion-crazed person。

      刪除
    30. You proves that you are not an educated person, plus with a lack of logical reasoning.

      刪除
    31. Religion-crazed is dump, blind and deaf, no logical reasoning at all. It againsted educating people with truth of the nature, it wanted to fool people with religion bias.


      刪除
    32. "醜" 字係咁寫架。學吓喇。

      刪除
    33. 乜原來你知醜嘅咩?

      刪除
    34. Wow! You finally learned to write the "醜" 字 !

      刪除
    35. 咁你知醜就得啦!

      刪除
    36. The main problem has/had been that you DON'T / DIDn't !

      刪除
    37. The main problem has/had been that your mind has/had been poisoned by the bias from the religion you have/had been “盲信”.

      刪除
    38. The problem is YOU who kept "帶人遊花園", and kept branching out ONE issue to MANY MORE issues so that you could "avoid the issue". When YOU made a logical fallacy, YOU 唔知醜 & ignored the logical fallacy but continued your faulty argument. It is YOU who has been “盲信” that your knowledge would ALWAYS be right.

      I DIDN'T EVEN USED MY KNOWLEDGE IN RELIGION YET. But the you said that I am biased. So it is YOU who has been biased by YOUR assumption. In logical circumstances, YOU had already lost in the discussion but YOU kept it going for NO GOOD REASON.

      刪除
    39. It's You have been NO GOOD REASON(S) on the issue after my post of 1/18/2014 10:36 下午 and you still kept saying empty words.

      刪除
    40. Ha.ha.ha... Stilll you. Still 唔知醜.

      刪除
    41. [匿名1/21/2014 9:12 上午] is dump and BS!

      刪除
    42. Ha.ha.ha... "Dare to Uncover Manipulative Plots" & "Be Sane", much better than 死撐而唔知醜.

      刪除
    43. 你已經係NO GOOD REASON(S) AT ALL,又認咗知醜,咁你都仲死撐?

      刪除
    44. 你唔知醜?

      刪除
    45. 所以話你DUMP係冇錯嘅,自己又知醜,又冇嗮道理好講,仲喺度死撐,連上帝都打狗唔到你喇...Haha..

      刪除
    46. So stupid. Everyone knows who you are. Ha ha.ha...

      刪除
    47. 人人都知你係Religion-CRAZED GUY啦..HaHa

      刪除
    48. "宗教瘋狂" ?? For I do and did about understanding the Bible, it already shows that I am not "宗教瘋狂". But you are definitely stupid. Ha ha.ha...

      刪除
    49. 最Stupid嘅人就係用現實中不存在的神來解釋現實中的世界,你 “I do and did about understanding the Bible”,你仲走火入魔添..HaHa

      刪除
    50. You didn't exist. You will not exit. In between one of the purposes of your life is to show your stupidity. How interesting ! And you listened to lies and take them as truth. Ha .ha. ha...

      刪除
  9. 你死前同死後都唔存在,而你在短短的存在時間裡唔去相信存在嘅嘢卻去相信不存在嘅嘢,你話你幾Stupid幾Dump呀! 你正一蠢材..HaHa

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你死前同死後都唔存在,而你在短短的存在時間裡去講廢話,唔去相信人係無知,重去相信另一個蠢人嘅廢話及理論,相信自己實啱,更嘥人時間,你話你幾Stupid幾Dump呀! 你正一蠢材..Ha. ha. ha.

      刪除
    2. What a waste of time.

      刪除
    3. 你真實嘅嘢唔去信,去信埋嗮啲神怪嘅嘢,因此你所知嘅嘢都並非真實嘅而係神神怪怪嘅,咁你梗係無知啦!..HaHa

      刪除
    4. 甚麼是"真實嘅嘢"? 甚麼是"神怪嘅嘢"? 甚麼是"並非真實嘅而係神神怪怪嘅" 嘢 ? 甚麼是"無知"? Ha. ha. ha. What a very wasteful of time.

      刪除
    5. 好似你咁神神化化咪係神怪嘢囉...HaHa..咁你都仲要嘥時間嚟問?

      刪除
    6. 如果係咁神化你都敢嘢,你重唔係極之咁 stupid ?

      刪除
    7. 你認你係神神化化就得啦..HaHa..神神化化唔止係DUMP & STUPID,直程係Short咗添,你黐咗線喇你,快啲去睇精神科醫生啦..HaHa

      刪除
    8. 我一直在自言自語..Ha. ha. ha. 你都快啲去睇精神科醫生喇。

      刪除
    9. 唔怪得你同啲黐線佬一樣 “一直在自言自語” 啦,原來你真係黐咗線神神化化嘅..HaHa

      刪除
    10. 食藥啦喂 !

      刪除
    11. 自問自答,神神化化真係黐咗線喇..HaHa

      刪除
    12. 就係比個癲佬攪到"人都癲"。

      刪除