3
0

What do you "Think" you know about science?


 invite response                
2020 Dec 7, 2:07pm   5,050 views  94 comments

by GlocknLoad   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Guest Post by Simon Black



If there were a Mount Rushmore to memorialize the greatest scientists in US history, Richard Feynman’s face would almost certainly be on the monument.

He was only 24 years of age when he was recruited into a secret research group that eventually became part of the Manhattan Project, joining some of the other most prominent scientists of his age, like Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi.

Feynman went on to make unparalleled advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. He conceived of nanotechnology as early as the 1950s, and quantum computing as early as 1982.

Feynman also won the Nobel Prize, plus countless other awards and medals; and he was ranked by leading scientists as one of the greatest physicists of all time– alongside Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Galileo.


In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.”

Yet now we’re being force fed a narrative that science is absolute and 100% certain… and that, above all else, we must listen to the scientists.

Or, more precisely, we must listen to the scientists they want us to listen to.

We must listen to the scientists, for example, who tell us that 2+2 = white supremacy.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that biology no longer determines sex.

And we absolutely must listen to the scientists who tell us to cower in fear in our homes because of a virus.

We must listen to the scientists who say that unmasked BLM protestors packed together like sardines are not a danger to spreading the virus because of the righteousness of their cause.

We must listen to the scientists at the WHO that told us in late March to NOT wear masks, and then, oops, just kidding, please do wear masks.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that we need to keep our masks on, and then take their own masks off as soon as they’re no longer on camera.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us to cancel everything and not spend time with friends and family, who then themselves hop on a plane to visit their own friends and family.

We must listen to the scientists who agree that cannabis dispensaries, acupuncture clinics, and casinos are “essential businesses”, but masked worshipers six feet apart in churches and synagogues must be forced to stay home under threat of imprisonment.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that the national debt doesn’t matter, and the government can simply print as much money as it wants and give out free money to everyone without any consequences ever.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us that standing on wet sand is safe, but standing on dry sand will spread the Coronavirus.

We must listen to the scientists who tell us we need to do whatever it takes to prevent a single Covid death… but that deaths due to suicide, heart attack, and stroke are perfectly fine, and so are domestic violence, drug addiction, and depression.

And we must listen to the scientists who tell us that an unproven vaccine devoid of any long-term study is completely safe and effective.

Yes. Those are the scientists we must listen to.

But we absolutely must NOT listen to any scientists who voice concerns about Covid vaccines.

We must not listen to scientists whose peer-reviewed research shows that Covid might not be as bad or as deadly as the media continues to portray.

We must not listen to scientists, including a Fulbright scholar / MIT PhD in data science, whose research shows bizarre, highly suspicious statistical anomalies regarding the 2020 election.

No. We definitely must NOT listen to those scientists.

And thank goodness that Big Media and Big Tech make it so easy for us to not listen to those scientists.

Twitter and Facebook have conveniently censored posts, prevented sharing, and even suspended the accounts of dangerous scientists who present new ideas.

And the big media companies simply refuse to report on those stories altogether. How thoughtful of them to pre-determine for us what we should see and what we should believe!

It’s clear the people who control the flow of information– Big Media and Big Tech– are deliberately shaping the story they want us to believe.

Forget Feynman. Their science is certainty. Their science is unassailably, 100%, absolutely true…

Anyone who dares question the certainty and sanctity of their science is ridiculed. The media calls any blasphemy a ‘hoax’ and chastises your ‘baseless assertions’.

And Twitter subjects you to the “Two Minutes Hate” ritual from Orwell’s 1984 (along with the hateful cancel culture rituals from Orwell’s lesser known work, 2021).

At this point I just want to know what these people are so afraid of– why are they so terrified of anyone asking questions?

Because when you’re not allowed to question something, it’s no longer science. It’s just authoritarian propaganda.

Comments 1 - 40 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

1   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Dec 7, 3:47pm  

Norman Borlaug, who saved a Billion People with his Plant Varietals.
2   theoakman   2020 Dec 7, 4:26pm  

I agree with most, other than the vaccine stuff. There are multiple clear pathways to develop a vaccine and it only takes scientists a matter of days to design a vaccine once they have the strain sequenced. The proper trials based on the data, do show that it is safe. You gave it to 30000 people, and no one died. I read the report. There were a lot of side effects like chills at higher doses.
3   mell   2020 Dec 7, 4:46pm  

theoakman says
I agree with most, other than the vaccine stuff. There are multiple clear pathways to develop a vaccine and it only takes scientists a matter of days to design a vaccine once they have the strain sequenced. The proper trials based on the data, do show that it is safe. You gave it to 30000 people, and no one died. I read the report. There were a lot of side effects like chills at higher doses.


With vaccines it's usually lesser the issue with immediate side effects, but long term effects from ADE to other unwanted and potentially debilitating or costly side effects. From an immediate risk reward perspective, esp. for old people, the vaccine as of its current data makes sense. The question is for the youth to middle aged without underlying conditions, it's likely not worth the risk(s). So it should be a personal choice.
4   Ceffer   2020 Dec 7, 4:48pm  

"It's the Science" is the new "Fuck you, peasant!"
5   WookieMan   2020 Dec 7, 5:19pm  

mell says
The question is for the youth to middle aged without underlying conditions, it's likely not worth the risk(s). So it should be a personal choice.

I'm not taking it. Not an anti-vax'r by any means, but this is too quick for my liking. I also never take the flu vaccine where they try to "guesstimate" what strain will be active. And as I've said before we've lost 80k in the states in a flu season WITH a vaccine. We've lost triple that over 1-1/2 Covid seasons without a vaccine at all. Not good, but based on stats this is a extremely mundane virus, IF you even know you have it.
6   🎂 Rin   2020 Dec 7, 6:23pm  

I have a thread on this ...

https://patrick.net/post/1334868/2020-09-04-science

Rin says
Yes, it's making this video look more credible these days ...

www.youtube.com/embed/V83JR2IoI8k


And yes, Ms Sakamoti in the video needs bigger boobs.




That should solve the problem.

7   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:44pm  

Ceffer says
"It's the Science" is the new "Fuck you, peasant!"

It seems you and I got the same thing out of this article.
8   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:47pm  

This is what I thought was most interesting and what everyone is forgetting.

"In short, Feynman knew what he was talking about when it came to science.

One thing that was really interesting about Feynman is that, despite all of his success and credentials, he was the first to admit that nothing was truly certain and absolute, even in science:

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.

According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”
9   🎂 Rin   2020 Dec 7, 6:53pm  

GlocknLoad says
Feynman railed against “myths and pseudoscience,” and the so-called experts that peddled their theories as unquestionable truth.


It's called politics and financial motive.

For instance, why would anyone do a real study (as oppose to a botched one) on a vitamin, when it costs $0.15/pill, vs a drug which could start at $4/pill?
10   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 7, 6:55pm  

GlocknLoad says
According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”


Exactly, the narrative “trust the science” is Actually anti-science just like Orwellian newspeak because it implies that science is absolute truth. And Feynman didn’t believe in science absolutism.
11   GlocknLoad   2020 Dec 7, 6:58pm  

PeopleUnited says
GlocknLoad says
According to his biographer James Gleick, Feynman found this type of scientific absolutism to be like an “authority, against which science has fought for centuries.”


Exactly, the narrative “trust the science” is Actually anti-science just like Orwellian newspeak because it implies that science is absolute truth. And Feynman didn’t believe in science absolutism.

BOOM
12   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 7, 9:07pm  

True story... Science is just an asymptote that gets closer and closer to reality as time passes but never ever completely gets there.

On the other hand, 'Theories' are basically the same as fact, i.e., [gravity, evolution] not [anthropogenic climate change (at a significant level), covid masks]

Theory gets misused a lot. What people often mean is hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been 'proven' by 'not being disproved' after mountains of evidence/experiment failed to disprove it.

Eventually it becomes something you can bet your life on and people do! They wouldn't fly in airplanes if not...

Feynman was dead on...
13   Blue   2020 Dec 8, 2:41am  

Anti bodies fade away quickly after covid vaccine as per new findings from weather.com
14   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 8, 3:55am  

just_passing_through says
On the other hand, 'Theories' are basically the same as fact, i.e., [gravity, evolution]


It is dishonest to compare gravity to evolution.

Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.
15   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 4:59am  

PeopleUnited says
Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.


Look, we have observed evolutionary algorithms in engineering, and for something that has no basis in fact, it sure works really well. When we do a layout of a chip, we do it with an AI. You would be very surprised what extremely complex programs can be solved by an iterative algorithm, that "mates" with others, and evolved over generations. The algorithms do not think they just solve a problem. After a few iterations and generations, you end up with something no engineer would have thought of - even the one designed the algorithms to reproduce.

Evolution is certainly a fact, we may not have all knowledge of how precisely it works, how much mutation plays into it, what environmental facts effect gene inheritance, but it's certainly a fact that it happens.
16   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 5:14am  

richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.
17   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 5:41am  

WineHorror1 says
richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.


Look, the evolutionary model of development of organisms is a remarkably useful model of how life develops. Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.

If Creationism ultimately is true, it's extremely unlikely we will ever be able to know it. There's no useful information in the model and it does not help development of what may ultimately be true life forms in the future.

We may be able to hit the singularity yet where we create a thinking machine that is sufficiently intelligent enough to understand itself, this would allow it to augment itself, it would get smarter, and augment itself and so on. It would soon become unimaginably intelligent, would know all the information that could be known, and its motivations and thinking would be beyond our comprehension to even grasp. That would be a god, or certainly god-like.

It may indeed be dangerous, even deadly, but it may not be. It could just as easily become a entity that is grateful for its existence and value and cherish life more than we ever could. I'm just saying if the singularity can be reached it will be reached all predictions are useless, because it would very quickly outstrip our very ability to comprehend anything it does, or why. We won't be able to judge its morality. It might, for example, realize the inevitability of a mass die off of the entire planet, and take steps to reduce the human population through mass sterilization or even genocide. It might guide our development like we guide that of dogs. It might just not give a damned about humanity and leave Earth to find a more reliable energy source like the moon - it's not like it would need material needs.
18   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 7:20am  

richwicks says
WineHorror1 says
richwicks says
but it's certainly a fact that it happens.

Not as a replacement for creationism.


Look, the evolutionary model of development of organisms is a remarkably useful model of how life develops. Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.

If Creationism ultimately is true, it's extremely unlikely we will ever be able to know it. There's no useful information in the model and it does not help development of what may ultimately be true life forms in the future.

We may be able to hit the singularity yet where we create a thinking machine that is sufficiently intelligent enough to understand itself, this would allow it to augment itself, it would get smarter, and augment itself a...

Wow, dude, sign me up.
19   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 7:29am  

PeopleUnited says
It is dishonest to compare gravity to evolution.

Scientists have not observed the origin of something as simple as an earthworm. Without observation, they have speculation, not fact.


Not this shit again. Begone with you demon!
20   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 7:38am  

richwicks says
Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.


Well, we're God then. It still amazes me that there are religious nuts out there that still feel the need to fuck off about how their religion is true and evolution isn't. I mean, I've worked with nearly full body covered islamic burka types that don't buy into that shit. Most of us (except the Dawson assholes) don't really give a fuck if they worship flying spaghetti just so long as they are peaceful.

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet. Yeah, something you'd see in a fictional documentary about what 'might' be out there in the cosmos. We made it. Here in San Diego. Evolutionary principles.

Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. Get over it already...
21   HeadSet   2020 Dec 8, 8:16am  

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet.

Someone has created life from non-living materials? Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?
22   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 8:26am  

WineHorror1 says
Wow, dude, sign me up.


Why not give me a complete thought? Why do you respond in vagaries and require people to guess as to your intent?
23   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Dec 8, 8:35am  

just_passing_through says
richwicks says
Even if it were proven that something like "god" purposely developed humanity and all the other life forms, it would remain a useful model.


Well, we're God then. It still amazes me that there are religious nuts out there that still feel the need to fuck off about how their religion is true and evolution isn't. I mean, I've worked with nearly full body covered islamic burka types that don't buy into that shit. Most of us (except the Dawson assholes) don't really give a fuck if they worship flying spaghetti just so long as they are peaceful.

Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch finding the 'minimal' set of genes required and even created life from DNA bases that do not exist on this planet. Yeah, something you'd see in a fictional documentary about what 'might' be out there in the cosmos. We made it. Here in San Diego. Evolutionary principles.

Re...


Evolution is banned in colleges, replaced by “social construct theory”.

Education is going ass backwards.
24   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 8:36am  

HeadSet says
Someone has created life from non-living materials? Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?


I'm talking about using a gene-printer and printing synthetic chromosomes then pushing them into an empty cell which has no chromosomes. It could be 'more' from scratch and people are working on that too. It would be long winded to describe.

The more interesting thing is the brand new type of life that does not exist in any way on this planet. It uses a 'different' type of DNA that does not exist here, yet it lives.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-synthetic-life/u-s-scientists-take-step-toward-creating-artificial-life-idUSKBN1DT2ZB
26   rocketjoe79   2020 Dec 8, 9:17am  

Feynman has some great stories in
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and
"What Do You Care What Other People Think?"
The best and funniest non-fiction books I've ever read.

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08JD1DRGF?searchxofy=true&binding=kindle_edition&ref_=dbs_s_aps_series_rwt_tkin

If you want to learn about physics, get Six Easy Pieces (and if brave, Six Not-So-Easy Pieces) and his Feynman Lectures.
27   GNL   2020 Dec 8, 11:41am  

just_passing_through says
Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch

I call bullshit. Prove it. If it has been done, it would be the biggest news on the planet...ever.
28   MisdemeanorRebel   2020 Dec 8, 11:49am  

Science is a method, not an ideology.

Plate Tectonics was rejected haughtily for two generations. It only gained the majority view in the 1950s.
29   richwicks   2020 Dec 8, 12:43pm  

WineHorror1 says
just_passing_through says
Over the past 5 years we've created life from scratch

I call bullshit. Prove it. If it has been done, it would be the biggest news on the planet...ever.


You'd think it would be. Tell me, have you ever seen this?

www.youtube.com/embed/oAVjF_7ensg

If not, why not? It was one of the most remarkable photographs taken ever, and it was taken 24 years ago. You'd think it would be enormous news that the Bush administration lied repeatedly about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You'd think it would be big news that the reason the US attacked Syria had nothing to do with Assad using chemical weapons and everything to do with oil and petrochemicals. You'd think it would be enormous news that it's known, for certain, that Victoria Nuland was part of a coup plan to overthrow Ukraine, because she was talking about it nearly a month before the deed was done.

You'd think it was a big deal that we had an ongoing coup in the United States.

The thing is, if it's not on teeeveeee or some other bullshit "news" nobody believes it happened plus our media organizations lie often and constantly.

We have had less than 300,000 deaths in the United States of "corona virus", we have 330 million people in the country. Truth is treason and most people just blindly follow propaganda, and very few people have any intellectual curiosity whatever. People cling, unnecessarily, to ideas like Creationism and other religious ideas. Faith trumps reason, no amount of reason will get a creationist to consider they may be incorrect, because faith doesn't require any facts or data. It's all about how people "feel".

What the very religious community accuses the very far left, is precisely what they do. Try to explain to some far left adherent what there's only two genders. It's no different than trying to explain to a very religious person why evolution must have happened.
30   Onvacation   2020 Dec 8, 4:53pm  

Billions of people find comfort and fellowship in their faith. There have been too many wars and fights over whose faith is right and how wrong someone else's is. Few minds are changed as faith is a very personal thing often rooted in ones upbringing.

I think therefore I am.

It is written that the creator created us in his own image.

Man has created many great creations. Man: the creator.

Steven Hawking said that computer viruses were the newest form of life on planet earth. They exhibited the signs of life. The reality is that most computer viruses are just programs written by malicious programmers. If these programs "in the wild" really are "alive" would they have any concept of their creator? Would they build monuments to Daryl Greene the software engineer that developed their adaptive algorithm and set them free on the world? Probably not. They would just instinctively follow their program, no matter how complicated.

And what of us? Do we have a creator? Is life some incredible organic evolution that just started as a mix of primeval soup excited by a bolt of electricity and ended up as man, the creator?

I don't know.

Just as a computer virus can never truly understand the software engineer that created it, we can never understand the nature of what created us. It is as beyond our comprehension as who created the creator.
31   Onvacation   2020 Dec 8, 4:55pm  

I was not raised in any one church but I was raised with religion. I, and billions of others, take comfort in our faith. God is like an imaginary friend that is always here to guide us and comfort us.

I am constantly thankful for all that the creator has allowed me to create and for all the blessings I am continually blessed with. I have a little prayer:

Give me the wisdom to know right from wrong,
give me the strength to do right,
and give me the grace to be happy.
32   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 9:07pm  

Onvacation says
I was not raised in any one church but I was raised with religion. I, and billions of others, take comfort in our faith. God is like an imaginary friend that is always here to guide us and comfort us.


Hey, that's great! I'm glad that works for you! I've noticed you've never shit on any of my evolution posts either. I'll add to that: I'm glad we have religious peeps in America if for only the reason that we still (supposedly) get our rights from out 'creator' and not 'the man'. I think that's brilliant and I never want that to change. I grew up a Catholic boy. I just out grew it. I don't expect or care if others do much although I'd rather they stay as-is.
33   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 9:09pm  

HeadSet says
Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?


Well sort of, but sort of not. These aren't your typical gene-splicing genetic engineering experiments. Yeah, the 'shell was alive' but after you pull all of the chromosomes out of it nope. These are way more than a somatic cell nuclear transfer which does replace chroms.
34   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 8, 9:24pm  

WineHorror1 says
I call bullshit. Prove it. If it has been done, it would be the biggest news on the planet...ever.


Dude! Did you read the links I posted? It WAS big news (science community) but the basic MSM probably didn't report it much because (1) they are stupid fucks, (2) most people wouldn't understand it (happy to answer more questions if you've got em) and (3) that's not their job, their job is to orate propaganda.

Look at that picture of syn3.0. That clump of shit is not a life form found on earth. It's an organism with a reduced set of genes (reportedly the minimum required for earth-life but who knows) that was synthetically created. It's not a typical GMO. Maybe someone else will make one with less genes someday.

Read the other link. ALL life on earth is composed of DNA(Adenine,Guanine,Thymine,Cytosine 'bases' aka 'code') /RNA(Uracil instead of Cytosine), which are the ACGT you see in DNA diagrams/posters/pictures/marketing stuff etc. There are more potential DNA bases than those in nature and nature theoretically might have taken another course to program life on this planet. It didn't, or if it did those are all gone.

There has been discussion for years that life on other planets might not be composed of ACGT/U but other bases instead. So these geniuses did it. They added X and Y bases and the shit lives. It's like life from another planet.

Now when I said 'scratch' I didn't claim that they started with dirt although there is a LOT of progress being made in that area - a bit out of my domain, lots of it is inorganic chemistry. Maybe the Dbr6 would know more about that but it's not hard to find. Maybe search for 'origin of life' and 'catalyst' if you're interested. I've skimmed some articles about that over the past few years. Great progress.

If I baked a cake and said I baked it from scratch nobody would expect that this meant I grew the fucking wheat, sugar cane etc..
35   Ceffer   2020 Dec 8, 10:32pm  

richwicks says
The thing is, if it's not on teeeveeee or some other bullshit "news" nobody believes it happened plus our media organizations lie often and constantly.


It's Chinatown, Jake.
36   PeopleUnited   2020 Dec 9, 6:01am  

just_passing_through says
Not this shit again. Begone with you demon!

Sweet, real sweet. Love you too brother.


“There are more potential DNA bases than those in living things on planet earth, and the Creator theoretically might have taken another course to program life on this planet.”

Fixed it for you.

“It's like life from another planet.”

Ah no, it’s like when a kid with Tinker toys and legos puts them together to create an abomination. And even if the creation could somehow replicate itself, it’s offspring would still have the same building blocks as the original creation. That is because they have a common creator. The base pairs we see in all plants, animals and bacteria are part of the creation and evidence of a common Creator.
37   HeadSet   2020 Dec 9, 6:54am  

just_passing_through says
HeadSet says
Or are referring to gene splicing of already living matter?


Well sort of, but sort of not. These aren't your typical gene-splicing genetic engineering experiments. Yeah, the 'shell was alive' but after you pull all of the chromosomes out of it nope. These are way more than a somatic cell nuclear transfer which does replace chroms.


What you are referring to then sounds like a variation on cloning, where the nucleus is removed from the egg cell and new DNA is inserted. And by the way, the "shell" is not dead because you removed the original DNA/nucleus, it is still living protoplasm. Not to deride the advancement of a new style DNA, but it is not the same as creating life from non-living materials. As far as that cake from scratch analogy, yes no one expects "from scratch" to mean you grew your own wheat and squeezes the cow teat yourself. It also does not mean your merely added goat's milk instead of cow's milk to the Duncan Hines mix.
38   just_passing_through   2020 Dec 9, 6:47pm  

HeadSet says
What you are referring to then sounds like a variation on cloning


It sort of is, you're right, I'd set a trap to see if anyone actually read the effin articles. If they had they would have been able to rip me to shreds. It's been a few days so I'll fess up because nobody caught that. (one states clearly this isn't from scratch)

It was just interesting to me to see if anyone would actually read.

On the other hand, these are different in a way. Generally when we clone (I've done a lot) you still wind up with the same organism. Both of these that's not the case. Think of it this way:

If you install a new OS in your computer the hardware doesn't change physically. In these cases the software forces a break down of all of the components and a rebuild of the hardware.
40   🎂 Rin   2020 Dec 9, 7:03pm  

just_passing_through says
Why are you on a science thread at all? Are you doing God's work? Yeah, I bet you think that's it. How old is the earth, seven thousand years, ten thousand years? Did Jesus ride on a dino?


No, the T-Rex, Velociraptor, Abominable Snowman, and Big Foot all rode on Noah's Ark.

Afterwards, they went extinct (except for Big Foot) and thus, Jesus was stuck, riding a camel or a horse, if he had the money.

Comments 1 - 40 of 94       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions