Dinosaurs according to Genesis



  • @GNU Pepper said:

    Oh, come on, guys.  A recently registered user on a technology-related forum claims to hold extremely controversial beliefs about religion? And most of that user's posts so far have either incited or perpetuated arguments about those beliefs? And the TDWTF forums are actually susceptible to this kind of bare-faced, hackneyed trolling?

    There is a certain minimalist elegance to it. To see how many hostile responses you can get with the least amount of effort, or how stupid a troll you can post and still get people to respond.

    This guy's nearly as good as the gun who started a cross-posted flamewar between a Tolkein newsgroup and a D&D newsgroup by claiming that Tolkein ripped off Gary Gygax. That one had death threats going back and forth before it was over.



  • @OldCrow said:

    @nosliwmas said:

    The large amount of evidence, probably. 

    It's that "probably" that scares me.

    As in it's probably the large amount of evidence that makes people agree (as opposed to them deciding on a whim to go along with it), rather than the evidence making it probably right. Jesus...



  • @eViLegion said:

    My advice to you dude, is that if you don't want to flood the sidebar with "another argument on evolution", you should understand that we're (for the most part) logical, scientifically minded people around here.

    If that were true of you, you would have immediately recognized the troll for what it is, and either ignored it, or responded in a snarky attempt to be funny, or mocked it in a self-effacing attempt to be funny.

    On the other than, I recall the days of alt.syntax.tactical on usenet, too.



  • @GNU Pepper said:

    Internet 101, people. If it looks like a troll, smells like a troll, and bites like a troll, it's a troll.

     Word. Many trolls do not realize they are trolls, but this guy does.

    Rule #1: You cannot win.

    Rule #2: The only way to not lose is to not play.

    @GNU Pepper said:

    TRWTF is the laissez-faire administration of this fucking forum.

    As opposed to, for example, The Purple Suck, where people have been banned for refusing to do things that will get them banned?



  • You and your narrow definition of winning.



  •  I want to find a suitable image macro for this thread, but there isn't one.

     Seriously, though, Alex Papaoomowmow or whatever his name is should charge $10 to register for the Sidebar, because this is better than Something Awful.



  • @drurowin said:

     I want to find a suitable image macro for this thread, but there isn't one.

     Seriously, though, Alex Papaoomowmow or whatever his name is should charge $10 to register for the Sidebar, because this is better than Something Awful.

    Picard Face Palm should suffice.

    Zombie Jesus if you want to go for the shock factor.



  • @Nexzus said:

    @drurowin said:

     I want to find a suitable image macro for this thread, but there isn't one.

     Seriously, though, Alex Papaoomowmow or whatever his name is should charge $10 to register for the Sidebar, because this is better than Something Awful.

    Picard Face Palm should suffice.

    Zombie Jesus if you want to go for the shock factor.

     

    How about an image macro from 1905?

    [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Harry_Whittier_Frees_-_What%27s_Delaying_My_Dinner.jpg[/img]

     



  •  On second thought, img-timeline.gif woulda been better, but I haven't a copy.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @da Doctah said:
    ObBiblicalNitpick:  Except that he took seven of some of them.

    Which ones?

    The "clean" ones.  KJV says Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

    True, other English translations interpret this as seven pairs of each clean animal, but it's definitely not as simple as "just take two of everything".



  • @flabdablet said:

    What do you hope to gain from pissing off religious people or, depending on their beliefs around the obligation to save errant souls, motivating them to try to save yours? You're every bit as unlikely to convince them that your point of view is correct as they are to convince you that theirs is. And you don't get brownie points from thinking atheists for acting like a boor.


    Regarding the "thinking atheists", that's pretty funny. Aside from the fact I've put considerable thought into the topic, and have developed a number of arguments of my own, you seem to be saying that any other atheist with intelligence wouldn't agree with me (or my way of putting it). Well, here's the thing - my aim isn't to convert anyone to my viewpoint... that's the kind of thing that religious people find the need to do. In general, the people who free themselves from the shackles of religion do so by thinking a little for themselves, and no external pressure will help; most never make it however. So what is the point in even trying??

    Also - my aim isn't to impress other atheists. Generally speaking most atheists are fucking pussies, who refuse to smack down obviously retarded theists doing obviously retarded stuff. Most atheists seem to respect other peoples right to behave stupidly and to teach their children to do the same. Those atheists should have the courage to tell the theists exactly how it is... they don't get any brownie points off me for acting like cowards. So fuck them and their cowardice as well.


    Anyway, to address your question... what DO I get out of it? 2 things:

    The first is a smug sense of superiority, as I deliver a devastating smack down to some total arse. This might technically make me a douche, but I'd rather be a correct douche than an idiot.
    The second and most useful thing I gain is certain knowledge that the religious nutter won't ever make the mistake of mentioning it in my presence ever again. This is a total result.



  • @spamcourt said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @OldCrow said:
    I'm an engineer, not a biologist.

    I have long been fascinated by the confidence with which engineers in general and software engineers in particular are capable of expressing egregiously ill-informed opinions on matters unrelated to their own fields of expertise.

    There's a name for that. The Dunning–Kruger effect. Unfortunately it's a term so abused that it's gonna lose all meaning soon, just like happened with "idiot", "moron" (which used to be legit scientific terms) or "troll".

    That is not actually the Dunning-Kruger effect. What you're talking about is just plain old "people talking shit about something they know nothing about".



    Dunning-Kruger effect is the cognitive bias such that ignorant/unintelligent people are so ignorant that they're unaware of just how ignorant they are and give positive estimation on their capabilities,

    whereas experts/intelligent people know so much more that they're aware of just how much they don't know and thus give negative estimation on their abilities. Just saying.



    Edit: although to be fair, what you said is a consequence of the D-K effect, if not the actual effect itself.



  • @eViLegion said:

    The second and most useful thing I gain is certain knowledge that the religious nutter won't ever make the mistake of mentioning it in my presence ever again.

    THAT'S AN IRRATIONAL BELIEF AND YUO ARE STUPUD.



  • If you use the definition of "flesh" as stated in 1st Corinthians 15:39, you could fit 7 of each kind in a rowboat.

    Kind != Species



  • @taustin said:

    @eViLegion said:

    My advice to you dude, is that if you don't want to flood the sidebar with "another argument on evolution", you should understand that we're (for the most part) logical, scientifically minded people around here.

    If that were true of you, you would have immediately recognized the troll for what it is, and either ignored it, or responded in a snarky attempt to be funny, or mocked it in a self-effacing attempt to be funny.

    I disagree dude... It is entirely appropriate to respond to trolls, even if you know (or suspect) that they're trolling, if you feel that you wish to do so.

    For example, you might be interested in their technique. You might not be particularly discussing the issue with the troll, but feel that the topic raised is a valid one for discussion anyway, so are simply using their post as a jumping off point.



    Anyway, take a look at my first post on this topic. It starts with "Ok, I'll bite". Now, that ought to have suggested to you that immediate recognition had occurred.

    None of my answers fit into your categories of Ignore/Snarky-Funny/Self-Effacing-Funny, yet clearly I know whats going on.

    Therefore either I'm not a logical, scientifically minded person, or I simply have aims that you do not understand (or which do not fit into your world view), thus I behave in a way which appears to not make sense to you.





    So, you can assume the former if you like (though, given the quality of my reply to you here, I suspect you won't, unless you don't mind allowing your own churlishness to deceive you),

    or you can accept that other peoples motivations are not known to you therefore judging their capabilities based on their behavior at a specific time will not lead you to valid conclusions.

    @taustin said:

    On the other than, I recall the days of alt.syntax.tactical on usenet, too.


    Eh? Is what you're recalling a thing that people should be aware of?



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    @eViLegion said:
    The second and most useful thing I gain is certain knowledge that the religious nutter won't ever make the mistake of mentioning it in my presence ever again.
    THAT'S AN IRRATIONAL BELIEF AND YUO ARE STUPUD.

    Heheheh very good - OK:



    Not certain knowledge, but it does massively decrease the likelyhood of being pestered by a theist again...

    and on the off chance that they have a second go, I'll give them a second grilling, thereby entertaining myself again at their expense.



  • @OldCrow said:

    No, I actually meant to ask if anyone here has seen one of the fossilized ones. I'm honestly interested in the size of the things. Some snakes make eggs nearly half of their own weight, but turtles make smaller ones. So how does a T-Rex egg compare?

    Fair question. My answer: I have no idea. I'm not interested enough to research, but by all means if anyone knows this then go ahead and illuminate us.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @eViLegion said:

    @spamcourt said:
    @flabdablet said:
    @OldCrow said:
    I'm an engineer, not a biologist.

    I have long been fascinated by the confidence with which engineers in general and software engineers in particular are capable of expressing egregiously ill-informed opinions on matters unrelated to their own fields of expertise.

    There's a name for that. The Dunning–Kruger effect. Unfortunately it's a term so abused that it's gonna lose all meaning soon, just like happened with "idiot", "moron" (which used to be legit scientific terms) or "troll".

    That is not actually the Dunning-Kruger effect. What you're talking about is just plain old "people talking shit about something they know nothing about".



    Dunning-Kruger effect is the cognitive bias such that ignorant/unintelligent people are so ignorant that they're unaware of just how ignorant they are and give positive estimation on their capabilities,

    whereas experts/intelligent people know so much more that they're aware of just how much they don't know and thus give negative estimation on their abilities. Just saying.



    Edit: although to be fair, what you said is a consequence of the D-K effect, if not the actual effect itself.




  • @OldCrow said:


    You won't know it, but I'm sure someone will share it with you. 

    So, visually comparing tree tring patterns and getting a chain that goes on for thousands of years? If you want to believe in the accuracy of that, then by all means do that.

    According to wikipedia it goes all the way back to 14,000 B.C. . Good for you. But before I take it at face value, I'd have to check how big leaps they allowed... and where they got 16,000 year old wood and how they confirmed the age of it. I rather fear that they checked the age of the wood with carbon timing, thus making a circular argument.

     

    [img]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x274/Nemesis_Z06/Gifs/imgtimeline.gif[/img]

     



  • @drurowin said:

    @OldCrow said:


    You won't know it, but I'm sure someone will share it with you. 

    So, visually comparing tree tring patterns and getting a chain that goes on for thousands of years? If you want to believe in the accuracy of that, then by all means do that.

    According to wikipedia it goes all the way back to 14,000 B.C. . Good for you. But before I take it at face value, I'd have to check how big leaps they allowed... and where they got 16,000 year old wood and how they confirmed the age of it. I rather fear that they checked the age of the wood with carbon timing, thus making a circular argument.

     


     


    That better goddamn be on a log scale!



  • @OldCrow said:

     

    And yes, I do take Genesis as fact. The flood explains why we have now zero live dinosaurs, but a lot of perfectly preserved bones. But that's about all I'm going to say about this. Let's not flood the Sidebar with another argument on evolution, shall we?

    Now, how about those marsupials (Kangaroos and such) that only live in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand? Was it him who saved them? How about penguins who live in Antarctica?

    How about elephants? There are about 10 living species of them, suppose each is at least 5 ton (a pair is 10 ton).

    How about American and Asian animal species?

    Suppose they all could fit on the Ark. How would Noah be able to gather them all from those remote places (which were not even known to the Bible writers)?

     



  • @OldCrow said:

    If you want to look for inbreeding-induced defects in the post-flood generation, the how about the average lifespan? Before the flood, everybody lived a lot longer. Hundreds of years.

    I obviously have no way of proving or disproving this, but I wasn't really arguing with you anyway. I was just making a joke about how all the incest maybe has made us worse (and I was actually thinking about the Biblical "people lived to be really, really old" thing when I wrote it.)

    @OldCrow said:

    The Canarians might have been described as a bit retarded every now and then, but no-one has had any complaints about the Icelanders.

    Pfft, says you. The people live in what is basically a muddy, sulfurous pit. Of course they're retarded.



  • @Ben L. said:

    That better goddamn be on a log scale!

    Um, and a backwards-looking one at that.



  • @alegr said:

    Now, how about those marsupials (Kangaroos and such) that only live in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand? Was it him who saved them? How about penguins who live in Antarctica?

    I once heard someone argue that the reason they know there is no life on other planets is that the Bible doesn't mention it.

    By that logic, there is no such thing as a kangaroo.

    It's probably not surprising to anyone who's not a frothy-mouthed literalist that the Bible doesn't mention kangaroos.

    But I'll bet even they believe in cats.

    (For the biblically-challenged: cats are never mentioned in the Bible.  Lions and leopards, yes, but nothing like Maru or Tardar Sauce.)



  • @eViLegion said:

    @taustin said:

    @eViLegion said:

    My advice to you dude, is that if you don't want to flood the sidebar with "another argument on evolution", you should understand that we're (for the most part) logical, scientifically minded people around here.

    If that were true of you, you would have immediately recognized the troll for what it is, and either ignored it, or responded in a snarky attempt to be funny, or mocked it in a self-effacing attempt to be funny.

    I disagree dude... It is entirely appropriate to respond to trolls, even if you know (or suspect) that they're trolling,

    It is. Taking them seriously makes you look like a retard. Only, in some cases, it isn't just looks ,is it? 

    @eViLegion said:

    @taustin said:

    On the other than, I recall the days of alt.syntax.tactical on usenet, too.


    Eh? Is what you're recalling a thing that people should be aware of?

    Pretending to know know what they were (and implying that you are too stupid to know what Google is) only provides more evidence, son.



  • @taustin said:

    It is. Taking them seriously makes you look like a retard. Only, in some cases, it isn't just looks ,is it?

    I tire of this argument. Let's fight about something that really matters: the CIA totally killed Elvis, didn't they?



  • I knew people in this forum were great with ridicule, but now I know they are great with building and destroying strawmen and thinking that solves it.  Sounds more like management types rather than coders.

    I know the story from the original post was laughable, but just because there are foolish people does not make The Bible or believers in general foolish.

     It is the same as "Just because there are bad <insert language here> programmers, does not mean that <insert same language here> is bad."

     I see a lot of attacks on foolish statements, but I am guessing that you avoid attacks on the contents in what we call The Bible itself because either

    1. You don't know The Bible enough to comment
    2. You know it well enough, and can't make a good argument against it or
    3. You just are having fun trolling the trolls, etc.

    From my experience in this forum, I have a tendancy to think it is mostly 3, with some of 1 and 2 thrown in.



  • @The Bytemaster said:

    From my experience in this forum, I have a tendancy to think it is mostly 3, with some of 1 and 2 thrown in.

    I dunno, probably mostly 1 and 2. Most people here don't seem to be trolls so much as imbued with foolish hubris.



  • @eViLegion said:

    [@joe.edwards said:
    Dunning-Kruger effect is the cognitive bias such that ignorant/unintelligent people are so ignorant that they're unaware of just how ignorant they are and give positive estimation on their capabilities,

    whereas experts/intelligent people know so much more that they're aware of just how much they don't know and thus give negative estimation on their abilities. Just saying.



    Edit: although to be fair, what you said is a consequence of the D-K effect, if not the actual effect itself.

    Sounds about right for a lot of the posters in this thread as well, seem to be talking about things they know little about.



  • @GNU Pepper said:

    TRWTF is the laissez-faire administration of this fucking forum.

    Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Gravity is just a theory so I don't have to believe it if I don't want to.

    Goddammit, do they not teach science anymore? Gravity is a phenomenon. There are laws pertaining to it (there are also some theories that would expand upon these laws in certain circumstances).

    Meanwhile, evolution is a phenomenon that also has several theories (and probably some laws) pertaining to it.



  • @eViLegion said:

    ...but any standing trees would have died and started to rot.

    Their roots could survive.

    @eViLegion said:

    Now, look up the age of the oldest known living tree.

    5000 years.

    @eViLegion said:

    Its a fuck of a lot older than any dates your best academics have put on your stupid fucking flood.

    Really? I actually thought that the flood was supposed to be about 5000 years ago.



  •  @The Bytemaster said:

    I know the story from the original post
    was laughable, but just because there are foolish people does not make
    The Bible or believers in general foolish.
     

    Most believers are in it to feel better about themselves, often
    at the expense of others, and don't give a shit about what the bible
    actually says.

     That is Most, not All. The rest become apologetics that seek to find interpretations of passages where somebody might otherwise wonder why everything in it seems to be consistent with the understanding of the world as we knew it at the time it was written. Like that stuff about there being a Ocean in the sky and people trying to reinterpret that to mean something other than "an ocean in the sky" because "it's symbolic".

     

    I also think it would be a bit arrogant to think that the Universe was created for us.Seems like a rather big playground.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @eViLegion said:
    Its a fuck of a lot older than any dates your best academics have put on your stupid fucking flood.

    Really? I actually thought that the flood was supposed to be about 5000 years ago.

    So if the world is 6000 years old, that means God took a thousand years to fix his fuck-up.

    That must have been one hell of a support ticket.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    the CIA totally killed Elvis, didn't they?
     

    It was self-defense. That asshole wasn't content with just destroying all their mind-controlling televisions. He was going after the innocent psychics at the control nodes. Those were just children, man. Just children!

    It took 26 years for his essence to resurface in Michael Jackson. The meld didn't completely take. He was targetting the Node Children-- just not quite in the right way.They left well enough alone for a decade and a half, hoping for the essence to just fade away. It didn't happen. They had to put him down.

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    So if the world is 6000 years old, that means God took a thousand years to fix his fuck-up.

    That must have been one hell of a support ticket.

     

    We know the speed of light. We can see light from billions of light years away.

    Anyone claiming 6000 years can go fuck themselves with a science text with guilded pages.

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    So if the world is 6000 years old, that means God took a thousand years to fix his fuck-up.

    That must have been one hell of a support ticket.

    Well, he probably didn't realize it was hopelessly fucked-up until later on. And I'm sure there was lots of second chances.

    The thing I never got: whatever happened to that vengeful, Old Testament God? There are, like, so many people who deserve a good flooding now, but God's glorious floods are nowhere to be found!

    Oh, that's right, he promised he wouldn't flood anymore with the rainbow thing.* Well that sucks.


    *Boy, the gays really stuck their finger in God's eye on that one, huh?

    God: Hey, sorry I had to kill everyone but they wouldn't stop having buttsex. But here's this spectrum of visible EMR for you all to enjoy, just as my promise that I won't resort to rage-killing everybody ever again. Instead, I will lurk in the shadows and accumulate a long list of grievances that I will one day spring on you--and which I will use as justification for an eternity of torturing you. You know, like a psychotic girlfriend..

    Gay 1: O! M! G! It is fabulous! I will print it on a handkerchief and use it as a gag for when I'm thrusting my massive, rock-hard penis into my the oily, muscular buttocks of every random guy I can find!

    God: Wait, what? No, that's.. that's not what it's meant for at all. I mean, it's just kind of a memento mori of all those sodomy-loving people I just murdered.

    Gay 2: I'm going to get it tattooed on my cock so the guys on Fire Island will know it's me, even if they can't see my face!

    God: Me-dammit, no! That's not what I intended it for! Look, I'm gonna--where the hell did I put that flood machine?

    Gay 1: Oh you big silly goose! You promised you weren't going to drown us ever again! But I don't think that's going to stop me from drowning in the salty ejaculate of a thousand anonymous bathhouse guests!

    God: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    Most believers are in it to feel better about themselves, often
    at the expense of others, and don't give a shit about what the bible
    actually says.

    I think that's true of all of humanity.

    @BC_Programmer said:

    I also think it would be a bit arrogant to think that the Universe was created for us.Seems like a rather big playground.

    I don't remember the Bible saying that the entire universe was created for man. Also, I would usually say it's the irreligious folk who are more arrogant*, since the believers think that we are created to serve God.


    (*Cue the idiots who are going to argue with me because they think "arrogant" means "wrong"..)



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    It took 26 years for his essence to resurface in Michael Jackson.

    MJ-ULTRA?

    @Lorne Kates said:

    The meld didn't completely take. He was targetting the Node Children-- just not quite in the right way.They left well enough alone for a decade and a half, hoping for the essence to just fade away. It didn't happen. They had to put him down.

    Win.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    We can see light from billions of light years away.

    Maybe when God created the universe 6000 years ago, he created light already on the way here?


    Dear God, that actually makes some degree of sense. I mean, it makes more sense than God created stars billions of light years away whose light wouldn't reach Earth until long after humanity was extinct.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    Anyone claiming 6000 years can go fuck themselves with a science text with guilded pages.

    6000 seems kinda long to me. My own consciousness only goes back to 1987 or so. I have no way of proving that anything existed before I did. So I'm going to say the universe is 29, maybe 30 years old.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    Anyone claiming 6000 years can go fuck themselves with a science text with guilded pages.

    6000 seems kinda long to me. My own consciousness only goes back to 1987 or so. I have no way of proving that anything existed before I did. So I'm going to say the universe is 29, maybe 30 years old.

    Observation === Science

    true



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    Most believers are in it to feel better about themselves, often
    at the expense of others, and don't give a shit about what the bible
    actually says.

    Unfortunately, most people don't care what it actually says.

    <font size="2">@BC_Programmer said:

    That is Most, not
    All. The rest become apologetics that seek to find interpretations of passages
    where somebody might otherwise wonder why everything in it seems to be
    consistent with the understanding of the world as we knew it at the time it was
    written

    The goal is to understand the actual original writings, in
    light of the times when they were written down and especially the language they
    were written in (all dead languages or dialects now, so they don't shift
    through time like active languages). 
    Also, remember, there was a wide range of people even at the time the
    various manuscripts that compose the cannon of The Bible were written.  What was known and believed at the time
    varied by region.</font>

    <font size="2">@BC_Programmer said:

    I also think it would
    be a bit arrogant to think that the Universe was created for us.Seems like a
    rather big playground.

    I do not see anywhere in The Bible that the
    universe was created for us.  Actually,
    it seems to be created by God, for God, but that is my interpretation, not actually
    in there.  The only thing that it does
    talk about is that man was first made from the dust of the earth and then
    created in His image (it actually say let us create man in OUR image -
    plural).  Creation is then given over to
    man for their caretaking.  I don't think
    we have done a great job as caretakers.</font>



  • An exercise for the readers of this post:

    Read the first chapter of your favorite religious text, but replace "God" with "Entropy".

    Suddenly, it's science fiction plus rape!



  • @Ben L. said:

    So if the world is 6000 years old,

    The person who originally wrote down the assumptions that became known as the 6000 years theory was asked to calculate how old the earth was based on The Bible.  He stated several assumptions, including:

    • There are no gaps in the Geneologies
    • The Geneologies purpose (or a purpose) is to establish time
    • Their are no gaps of time in The Bible unaccounted for.
    • Others...

    Unffortunately, at least the three assumptions listed here are known to be untrue and were known by him to be untrue.  In otherwords, he was establishing a minimum age of the earth.  Also unfortunately, some ministers got a hold of it and preached it to be as true as the Gospel, flying in the face of logic and reason from anyone who really studies The Bible.

     Though, I would like to have 1000 years to fix a support ticket.  In this case, however, the same person was both the requester and the implementer.



  • @The Bytemaster said:

    He stated several assumptions, including:

    • Others...


    what



  • @Ben L. said:

    An exercise for the readers of this post:

    Read the first chapter of your favorite religious text, but replace "God" with "Entropy".

    Suddenly, it's science fiction plus rape!

    And where do you get rape from in Genesis 1?  On the other hand, chapter breaks and verses were only added a few hundred years ago.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @The Bytemaster said:

    He stated several assumptions, including:

    • Others...

    what

    Other assumtions in addition to those three.  I am going from memory here.. you are going to make me dig out my reference material, I suppose.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    We know the speed of light. We can see light from billions of light years away.

    Might not be the best leg to stand on.  We do know the speed of light in a vacuum, but with the universe expanding and accelerating, we don't yet know the impact of the so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy".  We are still learning about how all of that impacts things outside of our solar system.



  • @The Bytemaster said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @The Bytemaster said:

    He stated several assumptions, including:

    • Others...

    what
    Other assumtions in addition to those three.  I am going from memory here.. you are going to make me dig out my reference material, I suppose.


    what



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Let's fight about something that really matters: the CIA totally killed Elvis, didn't they?

    No way. Reptilians can't digest peanut butter and bacon at the same time, so all the peanut butter just built up and up inside his fifth stomach. Eventually there was enough of it fermenting away in there to crush his glort bladder, the transfusions stopped working and he turned to moosh.

    The CIA fully covered it up, though.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.