Is there anyone on /pol/ who actually believes in Young-Earth Creationism?
>>71056564
vilify cancuk threads
insult cancuk posters
bully cancuk posters
>>71056564
I do
fight me
I also actually believe it
Due to evidence and logical thinking believe it or not
>>71056564
YRC is the only model that makes sense.
I do
>>71057692
Please, give me your reasoning for this. Because as someone who was given the whole Young Earth spiel as fact during school, I can't believe people actually view it as logical.
I've heard some interesting arguments regarding the plausibility of a young earth. Has to do with the reliability or lack thereof of carbon dating and other forms.
>>71056564
mememememe
>>71056564
do you need to be a creationist to know your planet developed through age?
i think that planet picture is pretty accurate.
if it suggests that it toke 100 million years to get it like that, if you mean like 2500 year shit then na thats completely retarded.
>>71056564
yes, but only in debates where i need a solid position. No one knows how old the earth is, there isn't a test for it somewhere. There are dozens of premises one must accept to even begin to come up with an answer.
People incorrectly believe that if you deny an ancient earth, that somehow you are denying science, but that is incorrect. Since the age of the earth is an unknown, anyone can reject any premise based on a hypothesis because starting from an Unknown, all premises are equal..
>>71059238
Aren't the assumptions radiometric dating based on obvious? How can you know the starting conditions? How can you know that the decay rate is constant? How can you know no intervening event, like say an enormous worldwide flood, didn't change the entire ballgame?
Proof to me, as a man who used to measure things, is that they have no standards. They cannot calibrate their calculations with anything but similar tests, all of which suffer from the same exact systemic flaws.
And the fact that you have to choose which test you want to give you the range of answers you desire is a dead giveaway that they're unreliable. All of the tests, if reliable, should give basically the same "age" of the samples.
Finally, by using radiometric measurements of igneous rocks formed at the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's in 1984, the samples were found to be upwards of 3,000,000 years old. This is K-Ar dating.
If the test cannot give a known sample a correct answer, how on earth is it to be relied upon for an unknown sample?
P.S. If you're interested, the rate of helium diffusion in samples is far more indicative of age than radiometric decay. A ton of radiometric decay apparently happened in a very short time.
Say, the time it took for the universe to be created.
>>71056564
tons
>>71058347
canada you are suppose to be cool - leave the bullshit to the ameritards
>>71059892
Keep sucking pope dick Italy.
it's not even in the Bible
>>71060079
It's derived from the bible, first by Bishop Ussher, and then by anyone who can read and construct a family tree.
Adam created Day Six. Genealogy in Luke from Jesus back to Adam. Endless lists of people born and dying at certain ages. And historical markers that coincide with biblical genealogies.
It's in the bible. You have to work at it.
>>71059238
radiometric dating is all extrapolation based on unknown variables. Carbon dating has a halflife of 6 thousand years, but that only means it's generally believed that in a peice of organic material, it would take 6,000 years +/- for half of the molecules to either lose an electron or gain an electron.
Decay rates, percolation rates, amount of carbon in the atmosphere today vs carbon in the atmosphere X years ago, speed of light, all of these factor into how 'decay' works. to say that it is a wild guess would be more accurate than to say its somewhat right and only if you accept the premises, i.e. you know how much carbon was in the atmosphere 1000 years ago and assume you know everything that affects decay in general.
The only reason we have a number for the age of the earth is b/c 'scientists' believe xyz about the solar system. based on these beliefs they have used radiometric dating on moon rocks and meteorites to come to some sort of consensus. It's annoying when fedoras try to claim this is some empirical fact, when dealing with any unknowns, you or i can simply reject the premises based on them not being knowable.
>>71056564
if you belief in the bible why dont believe literal 6 day creation
>>71059741
The Mt. St. Helen's thing was found to be bullshit though, the guy who did that test did it incorrectly.
>>71060216
>not knowing adam and eve is a methaphorical story derived from Sumerian scripts
pleb
>>71060853
>not knowing that the Sumerian scripts were taking inspiration from the actual story of Adam and Eve.
pleb
>>71060621
That's the lie. The truth is he didn't know what he was dating, and so therefore couldn't fake the answer.
>>71060216
>the bible is the literal word of god.
How the fuck are people this stupid?
Evangelicals are a blight upon this world.
>>71061004
>trying this bad to damage control
super-pleb
>>71060853
How can you not know that >>71061004 is true?
>>71061120
Indeed, the world is wicked and the god of this world is in fact your father the devil. You are right in saying Christians have no place here. But then, neither do you.
>>71061228
On a scale of Mecca to Canada, how stoned are you?
Bible is an artificial creation of the council of nicea.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
The veracity of the old testament is literally nothing, considering how much gets lost in translation, and it's been an absolute fucking age, with many languages in between, and a long period of verbal passage before that.
Not to mention the fact that most technology works proves you retards wrong.
All science is connected.
Or wait, is your computer just a magic box made by satan?
>>71061564
If I bake 66 donuts, and you put them into a box 230 years later, despite them being quite stale, would you say that you made the donuts?
No, the bible was finished in 95 AD, and a canon was compiled in 325 AD from those books that were already written.
Nicea had nothing to do with the books of the bible, only the books those people wanted in their canon.
satan does use the computer, yes, as do his children, searching out ever increasing amounts of wickedness to sate their evil appetites.
>>71056681
>iFunny
kys
>>71059973
anon it seem to me that the dick of my pope is well craved into your asshole.
at least here only a ridicolus small part of the fhaitfull fall for this nosense
probably even the pope would admit that the story of the creation is just an allegroy or shit like that
>>71060216
this the biblle wants you to know how old the earth is ,it does not do that for nothing.its thousands years old not billions
>>71061806
I wouldn't turn my back on any pope, so no, I have never been anally molested.
>>71061784
>If I bake 66 donuts, and you put them into a box 230 years later, despite them being quite stale, would you say that you made the donuts?
Go translate a document through several languages with google translate, tell me how that works out for you.
>satan does use the computer, yes, as do his children, searching out ever increasing amounts of wickedness to sate their evil appetites.
Because posting here requires use of a computer, this means that you are either
>satan
>one of his children
Why would I trust someone who inadvertently claims to be a demon, or hellspawn?
>>71061937
Yup.
2 Peter 3
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Just as the bible says, the people who think the world is billions of years old have discarded the Creation, and have discarded the Flood, as actual events.
The worldview of the evolutionist requires billions of years not for things to happen, but to overwhelm your imagination and believe that anything could happen.
If you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would never reproduce a Hallmark card, much less a work of Shakespeare.
They'd be lucky to get an " a " all by itself, or an " I ".
It's a mind control device. It's a way of compelling you to believe that given enough time, and random chance, ANYTHING can happen.
It's a lie from the pit of hell.
>>71062022
It's a written process. A man copies letter for letter what is before him, by hand, one letter at a time.
It works out quite well.
The Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah is 99.8% exactly what we have today, and it's at least 2000 years old.
And the differences? Spelling variants. Idioms. Copyist errors. Nothing about doctrine whatsoever.
Is 99.8% perfect over 2000 years not good enough for you?
>>71059699
>starting from an Unknown, all premises are equal
>>71062447
That doesn't work with a dead language.
And it's not perfect. Because humans were doing it.
So they're going to embellish, add flair, etc.
It's a constant of human nature.
Also
>>71062321
>If you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would never reproduce a Hallmark card, much less a work of Shakespeare.
Not only would they succeed, but eventually every theoretically possible event would happen. So, spontaneous combustion, a new universe just happening, etc.
I take it you don't actually understand what infinity means.
>>71056564
I don't know why anybody thinks finding out how old the Earth is could possibly be a meaningful endeavor. Young Earth, Old Earth, who gives a shit? What good is knowing or caring?
I don't know why some Christians try so fucking hard to fight the Theory of Evolution at every turn. It's not like a 4.5 billion year-old Earth or creatures evolving over time contradicts their religion. If they think the Genesis story was anything other than a bunch of savages making shit up then they're already irredeemably stupid.
This is what I like to ask Christians when they reject evolutionary theory:
1) How did anybody know what a "day" was if there were no humans until the sixth?
2) Who was measuring these days and how?
3) Is it really so hard to believe that God might not only intentionally grant his creations the ability to adapt to their environment, or that he would "create" these species using this process?
I'm not a religious person, and I'm not an Atheist either, but the sheer degree of dick waving and ball busting that occurs thanks to this topic is fucking retarded.
>>71059699
Agreed. There is no quality called "age", and there is no test for "age". Any test that supposes to determine the "age" of anything is therefore suspect.
So look around. What do we see. We see comets. Dirty balls of ice, disintegrating around a ball of fire. How long could that possibly have gone on for?
We can calculate the amount of mass the sun burns off every year. If we added billions of years of that burn off to the sun, what would the earth look like?
We look around the earth, and the most stable dating platform we see is tree rings. So stable that they're used to calibrate C14 testing. So what is the largest number of tree rings we've ever seen? About 4600? So is it fair to say that tree is about 4600 years old?
Is there anything demonstrably older than that? (inb4 clonal trees being C14 dated; that's not an observation, that's a test.)
We see spiral galaxies. Why? Why aren't they shapeless discs by now?
Why do we have such clear images from Hubbel? Why isn't there far more debris in the universe?
No, if you truly were to observe the earth, and the universe, you would know that change happens catastrophically, and not incrementally, and that this place ain't that old.
>>71062321
>But they could never reproduce a Hallmark card, much less a work of Shakespeare
Holy fuck are you serious? Because if you gave infinite amounts of monkeys on infinite typewriters enough time, they'll write every work ever written by mankind, and every work to be written by mankind.
>>71062750
It works with any language. stick stick squiggly mark. stick stick squiggly mark. And as I said, the results were, for Isaiah, 99.8% perfect, over 2000 years.
Nope. They've tried this via computer programs. Random meaningless strings of letters with few breaks.
Not a single "a". Not a single "I".
>>71063149
God. God was measuring the time, and God can tell time without a sun.
Was that really not deducible?
>>71063152
>Why isn't there far more debris in the universe?
Do you realize how much of the universe, how much of each galaxy, hell, how much of the atoms in your fucking body is made up of empty space?
And another thing, if the universe were only 6000 years old, we wouldn't be seeing shit on the Hubble, because the vast majority of the universe is absolutely more than 6000 light years away from us.
>>71057578
Please explain.
>>71063303
Once again, I reiterate, infinite means infinite.
Meaning if it can occur, it will.
And if it cannot occur, it will.
It's not really up for debate, it's literally part of the definition of infinity.
Also, I take it you don't realize that the translation of ONE word is one of the biggest causes of the Schism between the orthodox and catholic churches?
One word marks the difference between jesus dying for our sins and jesus freezing for our sins. Synonyms are a thing you know. Languages don't always have the same base.
>>71063549
But did it start out where it is? Or did God stretch out the heavens with His hands, like He says He did?
How sure are you that a star 6000 light years away still exists there, where you think it is?
>>71063746
Yes, that's what they want you to think. That anything can happen when you add the word "infinite" into the sentence.
It's a lie.
>>71063746
>freezing
I am intrigued. I have never heard this before. I would warn you that I consider both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to be roughly in the same ballpark, theologically speaking.
>>71064304
>That anything can happen when you add the word "infinite" into the sentence.
No, no, that's literally the definition of the word.
Also, care to address how the old testament quantifies time before it existed?
>>71064375
The freezing thing and the schism thing are two different examples. Death or dying can also be translated as freezing.
This is the schism thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
This is the specific mistranslated responsible.
Marks the difference between Jesus being of God, and being God.
>>71064304
>That's what they want you to think
What tinfoil-hat stupidity is this? How can you possibly argue against the literal definition of a word?
>>71064599
>Whether that term, Filioque, is included, and how it is translated and understood, can have important implications for how one understands the central Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of the Father's role in the Trinity; for others, denial of what it expresses implies a serious underestimation of the role of the Son in the Trinity. Over time, the term became a symbol of conflict between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, although there have been attempts at resolving the conflict. Among the early attempts at harmonization are the works of Maximus the Confessor, who notably was sainted independently by both Eastern and Western churches.
>>71056564
Physicist here. The only people I know that believe in the whole Big Bang spiel never get laid. Although that might be because they're physicists.
>>71064391
The definition of "infinite" is not "anything and everything can happen", no.
>>71064948
When applied to time and reality, yes.
>>71064391
Again, God can tell time without a sun. God knows the flow in the void better than you can imagine anything approaching that.
As someone with a geology degree:
Radiometric dating works very well, but it isn't the only evidence for an Earth >6kyrs old.
I've met some religious geologists, but I don't think they believed in YEC. It is simply incompatible with all geology from the past 100 years (a science which is put to the test not only in experiments but in the mining and O&G industries.)
>>71064666
devil trips gives you away, again
kek
>>71064948
>>71064986
No, it isn't. You cannot square circles in an infinite amount of time. Ain't gonna happen.
Your brain is sprung.
>>71064998
So the universe existed before god?
Time cannot exist without a universe.
>>71065138
>You cannot square circles in an infinite amount of time.
That's literally what calculus is.
>>71065085
>Radiometric dating works very well
All you mean by that is 10 men with 10 of the same samples and 10 of the same machines can come out with 10 answers that are reasonably close to each other.
That's all that means. It does not mean that the fundamental assumption is true, as in this case "six million years of radiometric decay takes six million years to happen".
lol but the input of random letters would always be random letters if i push with one hand eegfdgfcxdrgdd and the other igfghtshjjfrtujgfegh you wil have errors now thousand years later millions billions they will stay a error
>>71065144
>Time cannot exist without a universe.
You know God is eternal, and outside of time, by definition, yes? No?
>>71065182
kek
Oh, wait, you're serious.
TOPKEK
>>71065370
Meaning that by your own admission, the dates from before creation, and during it, are invalid.
>>71065356
It's refreshing to find people of other countries whose minds are not conformed to the god of this world, but are renewed, and discerning.
>>71065448
I have no idea what you even mean by this.
>>71065370
1. Don't make objective remarks that cannot be verified
2. Don't make nonsensical remarks like "outside of time"
3. Refrain from speaking if you can't speak meaningfully
Have a good one, brother.
>>71056564
>Young-Earth Creationism
Fuck no
>>71065584
Genesis is the creation of the universe.
"Days", or rather time, cannot happen without a universe, no matter what.
Therefore, all dates during creation are invalid.
>>71063364
>God was measuring the time
God's time isn't our time fella. A lifetime is a blink of an eye to God. How many times do you blink in one day? The average person blinks up to 28,800 times a day. Average life expectancy of a human on Earth is 71 years. That means a day for God is 2,044,800 fucking years if we're doing a literal interpretations.
Oh but wait, humans lived longer back then according to the Bible right? Methusalah lived damn near 1,000 years. In that case a "day" for God is as long as 28,800,000 years.
>>71065679
God is eternal, and outside time. He sees the end from the beginning. A thousand years is as a day to Him, and a day is as a thousand years.
He's God.
I don't know what you think God is, but think bigger. Think God Who can span the universe with one hand bigger.
>>71065096
>>>71064666
>devil trips gives you away, again
possible numbers: 0-9
chance of 6: 1/10
chance of 66: 1/100
chance of 666: 1/1000
chance of it being the last 3 numbers in the 8-number series: 1/5?
Blatantly satanic posts which don't get 666: A lot.
Hail satan. Check em
>>71065704
I think I see where you're off the rails. In the bible, there are three heavens and this earth. The first heaven is the air we breathe. The second is space.
The third is completely different, and overlaps the first two at all points and at all times. It is where God and the angels live. It is a different dimension to us. It is eternal. It was not created.
When God created this universe, the third heaven already existed. When God said "Light, be", the clock on this universe started. About 6000 years ago.
>>71065775
God is not subject to time. Saying God cannot tell time is saying you can do something God cannot do.
>>71057305
what is young earth creationism ?
>>71065313
>I don't know how radiometric decay works
What modifies radiometric decay? What exactly can change the rate? How would any of those affect earth's samples? If they do, would they leave traces?
>>71065791
>>71066070
It's the believe that Adam was created on literal Day 6 of the creation, and that Luke's genealogy of Jesus back to Adam can be calculated using the genealogies in the bible.
It is founded on God saying that each day of creation was an actual day, a 24 hour day, morning and evening, and that He did it for a reason.
After all, He could have genie-blinked the entire universe into creation; He had no need to take six entire days.
>>71056564
undecided here. the arguments for the young earth position are actually quite sound. i have yet to hear feasible responses to many of them.
science is finally starting to accept something that young earth creationists have said for a long time: that the speed of light is not a constant, and has been decreasing
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
so, there is one area in which they were light years (ba dum tss) ahead of their peers
>>71065138
An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of type writers typing for an infinite about of time would result in every possible combination of those letter, numbers and special characters. And being that every combination would be inevitably produced, they would indeed produce all of Shakespeare, and the Bible, and every other work ever written or ever could be written. It is a thought experiment for Christ's sake, a computer program can not simulate the enormity of infinity.
>>71066139
How about the Big Bang, in your cosmology? Do you think maybe the energy released at the Big Bang might have sped up radiometric decay?
How about being under 6000 feet of water? Do you think maybe being under 6000 feet of water, that hydrological pressure might have sped up decay?
How you even buy that something has a 10 million year half life, something that was discovered not a hundred years ago, is baffling to me.
>>71066266
Well, we know it's subject to gravitational dilation, so if the mass of the universe were smack dab here at planet earth, and then expanded in all directions, time would be passing massively faster further away from us than it is here.
The universe could be 6000 years old here at earth, and 14 million years old at the edge.
>>71066139
see:
>>71066266
also, how on earth can you date LIVING snails to 27,000 years via carbon 14 dating? doesn't this demonstrate that there is something wrong with the method? and those are not the only examples of patently ridiculous results from radiometric dating
>>71066335
Nope. Random strings of meaningless letters. See, your hypothesis was turned into a computer program and actually tested.
Gibberish. Literally not even one word. Not an "a" or an "I" standing alone.
>>71066335
Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need a ridiculously longer time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 universes made of atomic monkeys.[note 6] As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.
>>71060853
If it's metaphorical why are there genealogies back to Adam to collaborate Jesus as the Messiah?
That's not something someone that takes Genesis as a series of allegories does.
>>71066372
The elements we use for dating based on radioactive decay were not present when the big bang occurred, for one. Second the nuclear forces are stronger than water pressure, else we would have something akin to neutron star material on the ocean floor. And third, we can tell that something with a ~10 million year half-life takes 10 million years because we can measure the rate of decay in a sample, and then use proportions to find the time required, because time tends to behave the same except at percentages of the speed of light. Basically go fuck your self desu.
>>71056564
No it is bullshit
>>71066844
Hmmm I did not know this, thank you for sharing friend.
>>71066004
Saying God is not subject to time implies that there's something God can't do too you idiot: Be subject to time.
>>71063152
What about ice rings in glaciers? Those things go back like 100,000 years.
>>71056564
i believe we wake each day with a new memory of what history actually is and that the world was only created from scratch again at 6am each day
>>71066844
Infinity is a lot bigger than 360000 orders of magnitude of anything. Yeah, it would take an insane amount of time before the monkeys typed the Bible... I'm with you there but if the monkeys just keep typing indefinitely it is impossible for them NOT to eventually type every possible string of information.
>>71066908
Yes, you use many assumptions that may or may not be true.
I just wonder why you rely on the results.
>>71067168
Saying God cannot subject Himself to time is the same as saying God has to subject Himself to time.
>>71067260
They're every storm, not every year. They're not tree rings.
>>71063746
>And if it cannot occur, it will.
Nigga, you're retarded
>>71068020
What part of "it will never happen" are you unclear on?
Is it possible that the flood could have altered time, or how we calculate it? Like could it have slowed down the earth's rotation? It seems to have impacted a lot of other things on earth like how big people got and how long they lived.
Also, pls no bully. I'm pretty retard when it comes to things like physics and science.
>>71067168
>Saying God is not subject to time implies that there's something God can't do
but theists have always held that that's true: there are some things that God CANNOT do.
can He cease to be God?
can He learn?
no - because those are things contrary to His nature and would LIMIT Him.
now, God can certainly choose to be subject to time - but not *completely*
the incarnation of Jesus was God subjecting Himself to time.
>>71066372
>How about the big bang
With what mechanism? We're talking 7 billion years after the big bang here,when the earth was forming. The amount of energy from the big bang affecting this would be negligible at best. Also "energy" is a catch all term. What energy are you talking about, and how is it applied to the radioactive material?
>pressure
Pressure as no effect on decay because pressure does not affect the nucleus of the atom,at least nowhere on earth has that kind or pressure.
>something discovered 100 years ago has a 10 million year half kife
It's almost like we can measure the rate of decay and extrapolate from there, since it is a constant.
>>71066543
Accumulation in their shells, I presume? I've never heard of this, but you usually don't measure Carbon 14 ratings in living organisms because they're still taking in carbon. The only thing on a snail that wouldn't would be the shell. Link me the article.
>>71065775
So when God says he'll return one day, does that mean he'll take 2 million years to return?
>>71056564
Yes, I believe the bible is meant to be taken literally
>>71068264
>he amount of energy from the big bang affecting this would be negligible
>>71068264
>since it is a constant.
>>>71066543
>>71068502
Funny you ask that. He's been gone for two days, and it's the beginning of the third day now, as a thousand years is as a day to Him.
Plus you have the concept of the sabbath millennium, where man had 6 days (6000) years to work and then rest on the 7th in the 1000 year Kingdom of God,
Things change quick.
>>71056564
Earth is young and flat
>>71068638
How the hell is the big bang coming into play on radiometric decay ON EARTH, 7 billion years after expansion?
>>71068672
Temperature and physical state affect radiometric decay by less than 2 percent. Also, this is radiocarbon dating, by far the shortest ranged one, and can only be used on living organisms. Rocks are not living organisms.
>>71056564
I do
>DFW Catholic creationist
>>71068992
It never happened. There was no Big Bang. Nor have you ever realized that the Big Bang infers a Big Banger.
>>71069077
>it never happened
There's quite a lot of evidence that it did.
>the Big bang infers a Big banger
Sure it does. What is it though? Kinda hard to tell when one of your freaking dimensions didn't exist yet.
>>71069615
>explosion happens
>created a billion different organisms
How come every time a "Swedish" male throws a bomb, he doesn't create a new species?
>>71056564
When I was a kid at one of my christian schools I had a young earth person come in and teach all of us about the creationist theories. Needless to say I am literally retarded in many ways if I had been in public school I'd probably be far more educated than I am now.
>>71068205
>Is it possible that the flood could have altered time, or how we calculate it?
No. There isn't enough water to flood the whole earth on it's current state to begin with.
>>71069712
>explosion happens
The very fact that you describe it as an explosion tells me you haven't actually looked at the theory yourself and instead just listen to the parroted memes about it.
>created a billion different organisms
And all it took was 14 and a fucking half billion years of development.
The ultimate red pill is realizing neither the past nor future exists, and the present is limited and distorted as is man. Creation has no age.
>>71069077
Oh but a million plus animals came from every region on earth and than proceeded to get on a boat and not shit or kill each other for 40 days and 40 nights.
Than proceed to go to different parts of the world even if they're from islands
Hay God next time you kill all your creation for not doing what you want them to have a little sit down with them
A lot of people who say they believe in the 4.6 billion year old Earth can't begin to tell you why.
>>71073502
they just latch onto that idea, whether christian or not, because they perceive that to be the smart idea, and they only think that the smart idea due to increasing social pressures, they didn't come to that conclusion honestly
>>71073502
>>71073577
>post ID
>>71073739
sorry didnt know anyone would care
go to the thread on 4plebs to find it
its not a tripfag though so why does it even matter?
