![]() |
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
This is frustrating to watch. Ken doesn't address half of the points, and the other half is answered by "The Bible".
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
It was pretty interesting! Thanks for bringing that up! Ken's bit were sometime cringe worthy but otherwise pretty interesting as a whole.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I caught the last minute of the debate. I'll have to go stream an archive version of it later
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Ken is a really REALLY bad guy to represent the religious side haha. He is a joke in the upper leagues of religious studies.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
To be 100% honest, I wasn't even satisfied with Nye's responses.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I'm sure he had to dumb it down because
you know Kentucky |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Ken Ham's argument in a nutshell:
![]() |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
-RARAWR |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
It was quite frustrating. It almost felt like Ken's debate was mostly constructed to have so many things asked of Bill that would be impossible to address and still have a point of his own that wasn't just refuting the other frustrating points.
I especially disliked the "Hey, we have successful scientists that believe in the bible's scripture. We want to encourage the success that they have accomplished, which we attribute in part to the biblical teachings" and using those guests and whatnot. He was also by in large preaching to the choir. The fact that it was taking place in a creationist (pet cemetary? lol) museum seemed to draw in a biased crowd, from their reactions when clapping was heard/facial expressions/when jokes were made and the audience was shown. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Pointless debate, at its core. I liked some of the audience questions though, because they intentionally tried to rustle the debaters jimmies.
Also, if I hear the term "Historical Science" again, I might have an aneurysm. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Creationism is quite possibly the most laughable argument to be made. It truly is disappointing that these debates need to take place to sway general opinion in a state in order to keep science in a child's education.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Talking about fish asexually reproducing
"This is a real chin stroker" Made me giggle |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I mean, I understand the reasons behind reaching out to the audience instead of beating the opponent, but I felt like his appeals were really transparent and not all that convincing (IMO). All too often I found myself frustrated: "There are so many better examples you could be using!"
I more or less understand where religious types are coming from with their logic, and so when approaching Bill's arguments with that mindset, none of his arguments were that effective because there was always a really obvious hole that was left unaddressed. IMO, if your goal is to convince people to ask questions and pursue science instead of being stifled by dogma, you have to address the core points of confusion and give really good examples. For instance, he used the fossil record to explain how old shit was found below less-old shit, and that is strong evidence in favor of evolution etc. And yet when Ham brought up the basalt rock + wood thing, Bill just said "maybe the rock went over the wood" or something like that. If I were a religious person, I'd be asking, "Well, that was sure convenient, can't we say the same about the fossil record, then?" I would focus on complexity. The core of the religious mindset with respect to the universe is that the universe is so grand -- so complex -- so beautiful, that it had to have been created. So, show how awesome shit forms naturally. At least, this is what worked for me back when I had a religious belief or two. This video fucking blew my mind when I first saw it, and I realized then there was so much about biology/science that I hadn't been taught and had never learned. I found it genuinely interesting, and as I learned more, it became obvious that we don't need a designer to explain anything. Of course, I still think this is the most mindblowing video of all time: Universe, made for us? LOL. The universe is large because it had to be. Same logic behind evolution -- albeit on a cosmic scale. You have a shitload of variation in star systems, planets, matter clouds, forces, etc. Some of those are going to have conditions ripe for biological evolution to take place. As usual, the answer is in math + stats + natural science. If the universe were small with limited variation, we wouldn't be here -- which means I wouldn't be writing this, and you wouldn't be reading it. Anthropic principle, etc. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I do find it funny that a mechanical engineer was chosen to debate this topic. But he's pretty much one of the only scientists Americans know
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Not CT aside:
How Bill Nye wins the debate: |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Honestly, I find it ridiculous that this is even being discussed still. Only in America, only in America...
The one major point Ham makes is that evolution is "historical science", and therefore can't be observed. All we need to do is explain to everyone that understanding science allows us to understand natural phenomena, which gives us the capability to accurately understand the relationship between cause and effect. This means that if we know the present CAUSE, we can predict the future EFFECT ("observational science"). If we know the present EFFECT, we can predict the past CAUSE ("historical science"). This is how our science allows us to understand the past: by piecing together many clues and using our understanding of the world, not reading a fucking book with many scenarios that can't be replicated/stimulated with current technology. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
It annoyed me that he mentioned stuff like prophecies in the Bible coming true or whatever / having predictive value, when you can pick out tons of predictions that the Bible flat-out got wrong. Of course, anything is flawless if you ignore the flaws.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Every prediction will eventually come true if you're willing to read it sufficiently metaphorically :p And remember, if you don't think something's true or possible, you're probably just not smart enough to understand it. God's got it all figured out, and he's way smarter than you.
PS: I do agree Bill Nye isn't the best person to represent the anti-creationist side of a debate, but remember he's basically a pop-sci educator, not an atheist activist. I didn't expect him to have a deep understanding of all the misconceptions, arguments, and neologisms an extreme YEC would use. Many of their arguments are essentially just references to previous published creationist writings, which you can't even try to argue against without having looked into it beforehand. Their rules and axioms are just so different from those of the scientific community that you might as well be talking about the interpretation of a novel you haven't read. From my perspective, most of the sentences coming out of Ken Ham's mouth had several dubious or demonstrably false assumptions behind them, and he was often making several different claims a minute (or even 90 at once, in one case where he lists a bunch of random, unrelated dating methods designed for different things and then claims they give inconsistent results, without statistics or numbers to back it up). It's no surprise that Bill couldn't, and didn't try to, properly respond to most of that - you'd need a whole science textbook (or some kind of rational wiki) to refute all of what Ken said, if you wanted to go to enough depth to potentially convince someone. At least the appeals to the scientific method, the joy of discovery, the value of science education, etc. might get someone to look more deeply into the philosophy of science and how it differs from creationist dogma. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
what the fuck is historical science
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
You seem to suggest that an atheist activist would have been ideal, but honestly, I think a Christian scientist (not to be confused with Christian Scientist) would have best shown how evolution is science and that science doesn't conflict with religion. Quote:
It's total horse pucky, but I believe that's what "historical science" means. --Guido |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
if that's really what historical science is then that's absolutely idiotic
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
![]() DONE |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
This isn't a debate. It is a display of a collection of the simplest cookie-cutter arguments.
It is a farce. It could almost be considered sensationalism by some. If you want an actual good debate, you would need two scientist philosophers who actually understand both sides of the issue. Otherwise the debate will end like a children's squabble, as it tends to. edit: I'm not interested in discussion on this topic. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
that tree is 6800 years old? where you there to watch it grow? no? well HISTORICAL SCIENCE SAYS WE CAN'T PROVE ITS AGE BUT THE BIBLE CAN PROVE IT.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
This center video was suggested as related material:
![]() I enjoyed it much more. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Another interesting debate
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Creationism is pretty irritating.
The opposite of 'not knowing what happened with certainty' isn't 'divine intervention' Why would God give us a brain capable of imagining and learning everymore things about evolution if God didn't want us to use it? The laws of physics could be called God's laws, how life exists and all the biology behind it could all be God who initiated it. But the very nature of all our knowledge is deterministic, one thing leads to another, everything affects everything else. Evolution just makes sense. There is still plenty of mystique that humanity will never know about the existence of our world, questions like why and did we come from nothing or was there always something...so many reasons I could see that someone would be rational, intelligent and still believe at least in the possibility of God. If I were religious at this point in time I certainly wouldn't believe in creationism. But, if I did, I might as well not believe anything my eyes see or my ears hear either, as that's how much I'd have to doubt my own observations and understanding of the world around me in order to believe that creationism is real. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Evolution is what the evidence suggests is the case. The overwhelming amount of evidence, at that.
Science has no "jurisdiction" over God, nor does it care to; it is concerned solely with the realm of the observable, testable, repeatable, and makes conclusions of varying degrees of certainty in response. As such, evolution has gotten the gold star of support from science. Could God have created the world six thousand years ago with pre-buried fossils and other age-suggestive elements as initial conditions? I suppose; this is God we're talking about, after all. Hell, he could have created the universe yesterday and just implanted us with false memories and imagined thoughts for all we know. Is entertaining that possibility a worthwhile intellectual endeavor? Hardly. "I know nothing and anything is possible" is only a brick wall for the development of knowledge and, as Cavernio said, a gross insult to the minds God gave us. Since it would be foolish to accept those premises and halt our intellectual development, it is fully reasonable to examine the world around us and draw conclusions based on what the evidence suggests. Again, that may not be what *really* happened (though the argument is pretty damn convincing), but who cares? Your belief in the true origins of the world and your acceptance of (note: not belief in) evolution are two completely different issues. Evolution, as a science-based theory, merely shows what the evidence suggests. Since the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, you'd be foolish not to accept it even if you believe the Earth is actually 6000 years old. --Guido |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
okay seriously why is this even a topic of discussion
fucking creationism |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
I think, at some level, it becomes a matter of: 1. Emotion. Some people have lived their whole lives believing in Creation, and so it's really troubling to them for science to come along and say, "Uh, here's what really happened." It's not exactly easy to outright drop such a huge component of your mental process/life/psyche/emotional worldview/whatever. It's much easier to just stick with shitty arguments that substantiate your view even if you have to be willfully ignorant to the rest. It's always easy to keep in mind that you can't be proven wrong 100% (the "beauty" of unfalsifiable paradigms), so that means there's a chance you're right -- and for some, that chance, no matter how small, is enough to resolve the cognitive dissonance. 2. Intellect/education. I seriously think some people just lack the means to understand the arguments, either because there's so much science they simply haven't learned yet, or they don't have the capacity to make sense of it. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
One problem I have with the whole creationism viewpoint is that some people take fundamentalism/anti-science to an extreme, where everything they are sufficiently confused by gets explained away with a "well God did it that way, and we just can't understand His reasoning" argument. Like why God apparently created light from all these stars and galaxies and pulsars, appropriately red-shifted, and sufficiently far along on their journey to make us think they are billions of years old when they're not. That's all well and good if you're just talking to a bunch of people who believe exactly what you do, but from the perspective of someone who doesn't agree, the same argument can be used by a believer in any all-powerful deity. There's really no difference to an atheist between "God did it that way and doesn't have to tell us why" and "Aten did it that way and doesn't have to tell us why", except that people tend not to believe in Aten anymore. And it hasn't explained anything, either.
In fact, a lot of arguments I've seen for a God fall into this same trap: even if there is a supreme being out there, how do you know it's the one you believe in? I've seen some Christians making argments for the existence of God that are so general they could even apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And even if all the 6000-year-old-earth stuff is true, it could actually be the Mormon or Jewish version of God that did it, or even an entirely different being, and you may be eternally punished for obeying the wrong set of rules. People of other religions believe in their holy book as much as Christians believe in theirs. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
It's actually a kind of insult to God when you think about it.
If God made a universe that is indistinguishable from one that didn't need him to create it in the first place... then what good is God for? God may as well be a trickless magician: |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I guess I should elaborate.
Everything we discuss here about the relationship between what we observe and the actual reality of the world around us, the nature of science, the nature of knowledge, etc. falls in the subject of philosophy (or something like that, maybe I'm not being technical). What we discuss here is worthy of discussion as philosophy. Creationism has nothing to do with it. Discussing the psychology behind why people believe in creationism and how it affects a person is fine. Discussing why creationism is wrong, however, is as meaningful as discussing why it's impossible for a human being to consume a full-sized elephant in under 12 seconds. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I think you may be referring to epistemology (the study of knowledge / what it means for something to be knowable / true / a belief / justified / etc).
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Catholic #1
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
okay I finally watched this
this was really underwhelming, bill nye seemed somewhat unprepared and ken ham's head is so far up his own ass it's unbelievable |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
we use the BoM as another testament of Jesus Christ that goes hand in hand with the Bible we don't believe God judges people unfairly and takes all things into account. our doctrine outlines that heaven is in tiers, or degrees of glory, and that most of mankind will belong in one of those tiers of heaven. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Oh, you're Mormon? That's cool though, thanks for the info :) I guess it was a bad example.
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
What's Ham's reputation/standing in religious communities?
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
no idea but I think creationism is dumb in it's own right
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
His view doesn't represent educated Christian thought's general concept of creationism. The Creation Museum is a joke and most of what he argued was really far off base. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
Sorry for using you/your post as an example. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this guy said. He's stating an opinion and clearly has his head on straight. BUT WHO DOESNT THINK CREATIONISM IS DUMB Pointless discussion. If this thread was titled "Philosophy of Science" or "Delusional Disorder" or "Epistemology" or "The Psychological Effects of Religion" or something similar, we could be having a brilliant thread going on here, without any bullshit. Instead, we have sparse points that give insight sprinkled in between a bunch of posts that state the obvious. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
--Guido |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
The point I was trying to make is that this topic of creationism keeps leading the discussion nowhere meaningful. Therefore, that statement I made refers only to the people who are relevant in that context. Again, what you said was perfectly valid and correct, but obvious. I didn't want to reiterate what everyone knew and it would sound verbose if I'm trying to be sarcastic. Once again, discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
A lot of people believe in some kind of creationism, at least here in the States
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
It's a stupid debate to begin with. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
I think it's plenty meaningful to discuss the topic. Yes, creationism is obvious bunk, but that's the point: A lot of people still believe it. Others simply push the goalpost back a bit further and say God created the universe and then just sat back and let things unfold, but this is arguably no better since it's God of the Gaps / argument-from-ignorance, which is convenient to do when you don't have as much counter-evidence as we do for something like evolution. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
God appears to Stephen Hawking and shows him the underlying mathematics combining quantum theory with relativity, and gravity with the other forces. Then Steven (we're on a first name basis) starts "New Wave Scientology" to proclaim God's word through the 'voice' of Stephen Hawkings.
God then shows Hawking how he created the universe, 6,000 years ago, but made to look like it was much older. Because he is an all powerful God, he made the universe much older than it seemed in order to test the faith of the population of his creations. Only the faithful would continue to beleive because of age old texts. Steven Hawking took this information and ran with it. Taking the math behind creationism, he creates his own parallel universe, taking only his faithful followers. An angry God follows Hawking with an army of angels. A climactic battle ensues, but Hawking created his Universe to his own advantage. After much gnashing of teeth, the angels and God retreated in defeat. Steven remains immortal in a parallel universe, surrounded by his immortal faithful allies, the cyber-humans. God was forced back to Earth's Middle East, where people murder each other over which historical account of God is accurate. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
On one hand you have a group of people who, in-general, listen to science and try to fit it within their own faith. On the other you have a group actively attacking science to try and fit it into their faith. I think its pretty obvious the problem isn't WHAT people choose to believe in, its their actions and how they affect the people that don't share the same belief. Fundamentally the problem is they are trying to push out observational fact with fiction, the bible doesn't belong in a science class room because its not a system for measuring/testing/predicting diddly. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is science isn't written in stone. There are no commandments that cannot be broken, simply observations of the natural world that through various methods of testing and criticism hold true (or true enough). If someone came around tomorrow with a new formula for modelling gravity that worked correctly in all related equations and managed to improve/simplify on the old one, it would be the new standard and the old would be dropped. That would never happen for anything in a bible-science classroom. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
serious question: are you guys trolling? the "purpose of the thread" is obvious
If you guys don't wish to discuss the debate or its underlying topics, then this thread won't do much for you |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
And then I will attempt to explain why we aren't actually talking about creationism, and if we are, it's not worth discussing. I'm not giving this retarded concept any more credit than it deserves. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
This also includes creationism (the main topic of that debate) in the sense that a lot of people still believe in it. And so while you're 100% right that it's a retarded concept that should be dismissed to the dustbin of history, our society isn't there yet -- and that's something worth discussing. Do you not find it troubling that so many people seriously choose to not "believe" in evolution? |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
underlying content [of the debate] - science
the nature of religious thinking - philosophy and religion the role of science and religion - more philosophy Note how creationism specifically has nothing to do with the things you want to talk about. There's nothing to discuss about creationism. It's stupid. These other things, however, are worth talking about, but putting them in the context of a creationism topic is unnecessary (using it as an example is fine). And no I do not find it troubling. After being exposed to a wide range of people and beginning to understand more about how different people think, I am no longer surprised by the lack of intelligence certain humans possess. Their dribble is now mere entertainment for me, if I'm not trying to analyze them. Most people do not need and/or have the capacity to understand some of these things, and they don't need to either, as long as they're working members of society. What I DO find troubling, is how people with totally ridiculous and/or stupid ideas/philosophies/worldviews/etc manage to get themselves out in the open, and almost taken seriously by a lot of people who have power and matter. I believe in free speech and all, and it's important that everyone is able to share their ideas, no matter how ridiculous, but in the end society/government/etc needs to put in filters along the way so that only ideas that have value/merit are given serious attention. Though in retrospect, it's still far better than the opposite, in which I am referring to people not having the ability to voice ridiculous ideas like this, and are completely shut down without being given a chance. This is far more troubling than letting these people roam free (see China). |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Stargroup, your meta-arguments contribute nothing and are really just preventing people from actually talking about the things they want to talk about. You say "there's nothing to discuss" - ok, then leave the topic and let the people who think there is something to discuss talk. You say creationism is "not worth discussing" - well, then you can leave, and those of us who are from countries like the US where it has a noticeable effect on public policy can continue to discuss its effects. You say this is "a stupid debate" - then go join a smarter one. You say "discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved" - well, I think it was going somewhere before you showed up, but if you don't like the way the topic is going, stop posting in it or reading it!
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
I read what you quoted from him as if I was being cast for revenge of the nerds
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
If you don't like the discussion, nobody is forcing you to post here. Or, you can steer the conversation in a direction you think is more meaningful. Quote:
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
how bout that bill nye and ken ham
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
Quote:
It just so happens we diverged slightly into these meta-arguments, which is another point of discussion in itself, but not totally unrelated, the same with the other things that are being brought up in this thread. Nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to contribute anything else useful or make a point relating to the debate. Perhaps my sarcasm is taken as hostility or negativity, and for that I apologize. It's the way I talk/act when I'm presented with things that are taken to absurdity. Quote:
Quote:
Some of these people are unmovable. No matter how much logic and evidence you provide, how absolutely you prove they are wrong, they won't budge on their stance. There's no point beating a dead horse, you don't argue with these people, you just leave them be. Rather than trying to teach these people the right way, another dimension we need to consider is how to reach people early on, before they reach the point of no return, and how to deal with the implications on society, such as the setback and abuse you're referring to (which I do not find entertaining). I think these are two separate issues that you're talking about. While it is a significant problem, I don't think it sets back society as much as some people make it out to seem. There are tons of smart biologists out there working hard in their field, who ignore things like creationism. None of these ideas affect them directly. Research in these fields continue as they normally would. Where it does become a problem is when the technology that uses all of these scientific principles reach the public, and they must interact with them. Then it would beneficial (importance depends by case) for the people to learn about how their technology works. Along this context, creationism is one of the more harmless bogus ideas by comparison. Creationism could also indirectly lead to how people judge and see each other, but this is a religious issue in general, so religion as a whole needs to be addressed here, not just creationism. |
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
|
Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
This is one of the more infuriating debates ever, and to think it has actually helped funding for the stupid fucking park is mind-boggling annoying.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution