If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Let's ask some U.S. politicians about the age of the planet   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 218
    More: Scary, U.S., young Earth, national academies, United States presidential election, Paul Broun, expediencies, first world countries, United States rankings  
•       •       •

6073 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 7:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 11:12:05 AM

Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.


I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?
 
2012-11-21 11:16:22 AM

wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?


Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.
 
2012-11-21 11:18:42 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Pochas


A smart man would just say something like "I'm running to be your senator not your bishop."
 
2012-11-21 11:19:03 AM
Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?
 
2012-11-21 11:20:26 AM

JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?


Creationists will just say God used magic to make the light be here at Earth before it should have been.
 
2012-11-21 11:20:29 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: dywed88: Yes, Protestantism encourages a more personal view of the Bible and religion in general, but most mainline protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) aren't literalists.

Not always true. The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).


I have a Lutheran cousin who, some years ago, told me that the actual Garden of Eden had been discovered.
 
2012-11-21 11:22:12 AM
wippit:
I believe in God :)

wippit:

I'm a creationist. 

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-21 11:22:16 AM

Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.


That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process. I'm of no organized religion (was bought up Catholic), although I am married to a Jehovah's Witness, which makes for some good debates now and then.
 
2012-11-21 11:22:43 AM

Martian_Astronomer: "Hermeneutics" is a fancy word for "interpretation."


Wasn't it also a British Invasion band? Herman's Hermeneutics?
 
2012-11-21 11:23:20 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).


Probably Missouri Synod.
 
2012-11-21 11:25:35 AM

Pochas: A smart man would just say something like "I'm running to be your senator not your bishop."


I would also accept that.
 
2012-11-21 11:26:53 AM

wippit: That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you are almost certainly a "theistic evolutionist" and not a "creationist". Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Kenneth Hamm ministries, the creation museum in Kentucky, Kent Hovind ministries, etc. all agree that no one who admits that evolution has happened can be considered a "creationist".
 
2012-11-21 11:30:33 AM

JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?


The light was created "en route", the speed of light has changed over time, and other excuses. It's like Adam's belly button--God tried to fake everthing to look older just so he would have an excuse to send more people to Hell.
 
2012-11-21 11:32:56 AM

Pochas: JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?

Creationists will just say God used magic to make the light be here at Earth before it should have been.


He can do that? Wow...maybe I should look into this God guy.

Wait, is he the one who made that branch fall on my car last week?

So, he's kind of a good guy, but kind of a prick.
 
2012-11-21 11:35:04 AM

dittybopper: Wasn't it also a British Invasion band? Herman's Hermeneutics?


Yep. Some of their hits included "Mrs. Brown, you've got Acceptably Orthodox Views on Soteriology" and "That Stance on Predestination is a Must to Avoid."
 
2012-11-21 11:37:27 AM
Yeah, God. What a great guy. "Hey Abraham, kill your only son for me so I can win a bet!"
 
2012-11-21 11:53:08 AM

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you're not a Creationist in the sense that that word is used by pretty much everyone in these discussions.
 
2012-11-21 11:53:18 AM

pciszek:
Then you are almost certainly a "theistic evolutionist" and not a "creationist". Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Kenneth Hamm ministries, the creation museum in Kentucky, Kent Hovind ministries, etc. all agree that no one who admits that evolution has happened can be considered a "creationist".


Unless they trademarked the term, they need to realize that many non-Christians are creationists. Given all but Genesis above is a religious group, I'm amazed they haven't done this yet.
 
2012-11-21 12:06:59 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Very little disqualifies someone from being a senator, certainly not a bit of confusion over whether the earth is 2, 3, 4 or 5 billion years old. There are however reasons to be concerned when elected representatives in the highest levels of goverent either think the earth is a few thousand years old or are so beholden to people who do that they have to pander or face being voted out of office.
 
2012-11-21 12:07:37 PM
So if you are playing the part of a flat-earther, Christian Fundamentalist politician, it means you are either a dipshiat true believer or you are a cynical liar.

It is proven once again: The GOP is the party of the stupid and the evil.
 
2012-11-21 12:16:19 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


So you're saying you couldn't ballpark that number? Are you saying that religious viewpoints as to the age of the earth should also be given equal consideration to scientific fact?

What should disqualify you from being a Senator is pretending (or actually believing) that some book written thousands of years ago by people who had no idea how to calculate the age of the earth should be considered a reasonable source for determining the age of the earth.
 
2012-11-21 12:18:38 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Forgetting the exact number does not disqualify you from being a senator. But being so dense you actually think that is even remotely the point does disqualify you from holding any position requiring basic critical thinking and communication skills.
 
2012-11-21 12:24:00 PM

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process. I'm of no organized religion (was bought up Catholic), although I am married to a Jehovah's Witness, which makes for some good debates now and then.


At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.
 
2012-11-21 12:27:55 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.


"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.
 
2012-11-21 12:32:58 PM
Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.
 
2012-11-21 12:34:43 PM

wippit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.


Believing that is one thing. Pretending it's science is another.
 
2012-11-21 12:37:12 PM

dywed88: Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.


Common usage? That's not very scientific.
 
2012-11-21 12:50:24 PM

wippit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.


Look, if you want that badly to try and shove yourself into that box with that label, I can't stop you. But that is the most watered down definition you could possibly produce, to the point it is devoid of all meaning in a connotative sense, and practically all meaning in a denotative sense. It would essentially mean that anyone of any religion of any era that thought 'god' had a role in the beginning of the universe is a creationist.

I don't see how being that willfully obtuse benefits you or any serious conversation on the matter.

Contemporary U.S. creationism insinuates that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, interventionist, sentient deity specifically created the earth universe and man in essentially the form they are in now over a literal period of 6 earth days as stipulated in the Old Testament.

Words. They mean things. And not always what we want them to mean.

==========================

Oxford online:
creationism
noun
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

another term for creation science.

creation science
noun
the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

dictionary.com
cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
 
2012-11-21 12:53:20 PM
Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.
 
2012-11-21 01:04:09 PM

wippit: Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.


You can't renounce being something you never were.

If you remove context and precision from a definition it is pointless.

Humans: Noun; a creature that breathes air and lives on earth.
So now dolphins, dogs and birds are humans.

Sky: Noun: Something that is blue.
So now my pen is the sky.

/See how that works?
 
2012-11-21 01:05:27 PM

wippit: dywed88: Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.

Common usage? That's not very scientific.


In online discussions of evolution/creationism, the word "creationist" is used to describe a person with a fairly specific set of attributes. This is true of every message board/comment thread I have seen on the topic in the last twenty years. If you think this is unfair, or unserious, or unscientific, or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody else is using a well understood and agreed upon definition. Insisting on using a definition used by pretty much nobody else in the conversation is only going to derail the discussion
 
2012-11-21 01:06:45 PM
I heard that, when the debbil tries to force sinner-deceivin' fossils into the ground, Mother Earth has ways of shutting that whole thing down.
 
2012-11-21 01:08:37 PM
Fossils: They're like a giant Easter egg hunt. And all the kids who find one go to hell!
 
2012-11-21 01:12:48 PM
To: Perdogg

The communist MSM are on a crazy high from the election. They now think they can sway anything from now on. I have never seen a more lying bunch of bond scum as a see in the MSM. Some need jail time.

3 posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:50:05 PM by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-11-21 01:17:46 PM

Frederick: The US has an approximate rate of 40% for college degrees among 25+ yo. I havent verified it, but I'd imagine that more than 40% of US politicians have college degrees. That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


Roughly two in three of US college graduates denies that humans evolved from earlier species of animals; a hair more than one in two, among graduates who identify as strongly Republican.

Frederick: The point I was trying to make is that politicians likely intentionally misrepresent themselves to appeal to their base.


The odds are, better than half the GOP don't need to.

Chummer45: Of all science to take issue with, why fight your battles over something as stupid as young earth creation theory?


It undermines Scriptural Inerrancy, which undermines the garden of Eden story, undermining the concept of original sin, undermining the necessity of the crucifixion sacrifice. Or at least, that's what Answers In Genesis points to.

Warning: that site is a morass of ignorance.

GentDirkly: We can prove that the features may have been created by sediments and tectonics, but we can't prove that those features didn't come about some other way.


Which gets into the nature of what's meant by "proof" in empirical matters, the problem of induction, and the nature of Parsimony. Short form: the proposed alternatives are more probably wrong.

theknuckler_33: Awww.


He's apparently retired from Fark, if you check the link in his profile.
 
2012-11-21 01:22:40 PM
Besides, one can determine the rough age of the earth by a very simple calculation. It is a fact that among all known isotopes found on earth that are not themselves products of radioactive decay, every isotope with a half life less than about 70 million years is absent (evidently because all traces have disappeared during the age of the earth), yet every isotope with a half life greater than about 70 million years is present at some detectable level. Since our current technology can detect isotopes with an abundance of roughly one part in a trillion (corresponding to the amount remaining after 40 half lives), this shows that the material from which our earth formed is at least 40 x 70 million (= 2.8 billion) years old.

I don't know. It would take some time and patience to learn exactly what that all means. Physicists have years of education and experience but they could be lying so they get more grant money in the future for more research to verify their claims. Clearly I have no reason to trust them.

My doctor told me I need antibiotics to fight an infection. I don't completely understand human anatomy and he has years of education and experience but he could be lying so I would have to pay for antibiotics and he probably has stock in a pharmaceutical company and I have to pay the medical bill on top of that. Clearly I have no reason to trust him.

My auto mechanic says I need to replace parts in my car engine. I haven't learned exactly how an engine works and he has years of experience and apprenticeship but I do have to pay him to buy the parts and fix it so clearly I have no reason to trust him.

Well I guess I can't trust anything anybody says because they all make money in some way by practicing their profession. I guess I can only trust the Church as there is no money or power involved in what they do.

Oh wait.
 
2012-11-21 02:11:14 PM

pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.


Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.
 
2012-11-21 02:18:40 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.


wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL
scientists, when listing ranges, typically only include plausible answers.
but go ahead, I am sure that she will make a great homemaker.

/yes, we get the frame of reference point ... still irrational and unscientific. unless you included: one number comes from fiction and one number comes from science ...
 
2012-11-21 02:33:57 PM

wippit: Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.


wippit good.
 
2012-11-21 02:43:03 PM

namatad: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL
scientists, when listing ranges, typically only include plausible answers.
but go ahead, I am sure that she will make a great homemaker.

/yes, we get the frame of reference point ... still irrational and unscientific. unless you included: one number comes from fiction and one number comes from science ...


The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.

A good scientist can talk to the masses and get scientific points across without ticking off the majority of the population. Telling the creationists that they are stupid get us nowhere. Telling them that the 4.5 billion year earth is a model for predicting our geological future is a good teaching moment.
 
2012-11-21 02:46:41 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.


So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.
 
2012-11-21 02:52:07 PM

namatad: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL


It sounds like a good way to teach his daughter about "error bars".
 
2012-11-21 03:28:46 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.

So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.


Serious Post on Serious Thread: piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.

So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.


I may be religious, but God does not exist in my research lab. My child will be able to discern between God and science as well, and hopefully will be able to converse with her more conservative friends in the future and sway them towards more scientific reasoning without pissing them off.
 
2012-11-21 04:29:48 PM
The article has a pretty obvious point of view and message. I'd like to see a poll of all the senators, reps and governors and see how they respond. Many would avoid the question but if you could get actual numbers from them I'd say less than 25% would be the geological number, less than 25% would be the creationist number, the majority would be neither because most honestly would not know.

I don't care what a politician thinks or believes. I care about how they act and vote while in office. It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters on if they are advocating/voting for spending more or less on science (science in this case could be any budgetary item).
 
2012-11-21 04:42:39 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.


Do you explain that the "frame of reference" (i.e. science) for the 4.5 billion year answer is the one that brought us computers, the internet, the moon landing, heart transplants, eradication of smallpox and nuclear power?

And that the "frame of reference" for the 6000 year answer is the one that claims that talking snakes are a real thing?
 
2012-11-21 05:40:30 PM
At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

What a farking dipshiat. Bonus: he's one of the people in charge of this country.
 
2012-11-21 05:47:04 PM
I'll just leave this here:

Link
 
2012-11-21 06:00:23 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

Do you explain that the "frame of reference" (i.e. science) for the 4.5 billion year answer is the one that brought us computers, the internet, the moon landing, heart transplants, eradication of smallpox and nuclear power?

And that the "frame of reference" for the 6000 year answer is the one that claims that talking snakes are a real thing?


Why don't you just read the rest of the post.
 
2012-11-21 06:24:16 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.


If your philosophy is "there's no difference between reality and fantasy", yeah. I feel sorry for your child.
 
2012-11-21 07:26:06 PM

phlegmmo: I'll just leave this here:

Link


Why, are we supposed to be outraged by this or something?

Is this supposed to somehow make Rubio not a complete fundie dipshiat?

Just wondering what your motives are?
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report