Political Memes.

*international hatred of America intensifies*

Allahu mexi-bar.

The right man won.

I found the music very funny.

Yeah...about that...you might want to turn on a TV, if you haven't already.

Trump will have won over 300 certified Electoral Votes by the time the automatic recounts are all finished.

I meant what I said as in Hillary had already won because it was so likely. I'm happy with this result though.

So lovely

Because....real conservatives are civil.

Seems just like yesterday....

This isn't a meme, but I couldn't figure out a better place to post this video. It's just hilarious...and it kinda backfired in it's purpose. If you want less people to vote for trump, you probably shouldn't have made all your heroes yell in Spanish.

Some of the things that the Latino community makes

Science and Religion are my two biggest subjects in life. For some -- like me -- they compliment each other and mix beautifully. Young Earth Creationism is a perfect example of how wonderfully science and faith can blend.

As an example, creationism is a discipline of historical science which seeks to understand how things came to be. But, like all with other aspects of historical science, with creationism you can only try to explain evidences according to your perceptions and world-view way of thinking about things. Since historical science is a conjecture-based study without the ability to properly verify all assumptions with repeatable experimentation, you must rely strictly on logic-based processes of research.

Since the historicity of unobserved (and sometimes non-observable) past events and processes is subject to interpretation, there is an inherent bias in how the resulting data is coalesced from experimental verification procedures. As a result, your beliefs and/or world-view colors how you interpret some data. Logically-speaking, one plus one equals two is not contestable but the origin of the Grand Canyon is.

Historical Science, as a discipline, can seek to explain the origin of the Grand Canyon by researching the composition of the walls of the canyon, their makeup, their layering, the way the residue is laid out at the base of the walls, where the washout occurs, the topography and elevations of the canyon, the overall shape and course of the canyon, the state of the water that currently passes through it, and so forth. But, your interpretations about why the aggregate materials and the cut of the canyon and it's course are largely dependent on assumptions of the history of the region.

If you base your world-view on large expanses of history with chance-random-based processes, then you might assume that a small quantity of water carved the canyon over a very long period of time. On the other hand, if you believe in an orderly non-chance-based set of processes that were determined by a global and catastrophic world-wide flood, then you can logically extrapolate that a lot of water over a short period of time carved the canyon.

Young Earth Creationism -- as a branch of creationism, which is a subset of historical science -- postulates that the Grand Canyon was created by a large volume of water that broke the "dike" of the Hiabab Uplift which held back a large body of water that was left over from a global flood that had already receded some time prior to this event. Then, once water started to trickle over the dike, it created a snake-like stream that quickly widened and eventually carved out the Grand Canyon over the course of days, weeks, or maybe even a few months...but very rapidly while releasing that large volume of water through a relatively narrow channel.

The problem with old-earth creationism's interpretation of the Grand Canyon's origins -- that a small body of water slowly carved away the canyon -- is that in order for that to occur, the river course would first have to travel uphilll for a time before descending down the other side of the Hiabab Uplift. Since that would defy gravity, logically, the old-earth origin of the Grand Canyon cannot possibly be true. But if there was water pooled behind the Hiabab Uplift according to the theory that the water is left over from a global world-wide flood, then gravity would not have to be violated to flow water over the top of the Hiabab Uplift. So, the flood-catastrophe theory is a possible explanation for the Grand Canyon whereas the slow-carved effect of the Colorado River theory is not a possible explanation for it.

Now, some might say there was no such thing as a global flood. To them, I would point out that fossils of deep-water shellfish have been found at the top of Mt. Everest -- a fact -- which has served to prove either that the Mountain was once at the bottom of the sea or that waters once covered the earth (even the mountains).

Now, according to old-earth theory, the mountain was pushed up from some primordial ocean over billions of years. However, if that "pushing-up" aspect occurred rapidly -- as postulated by Young-Earth Creationism during and immediately after a globally catastrophic world-wide flood, then the possibility of fossils atop it makes sense since they'd still be there as the mountain is pushed up or were deposited upon it either during or after it arose while the flood waters were upon the face of the earth.

However, since -- according to old-earth theory -- the process of pushing the mountain up is so slow, any fossils of deep-sea shellfish would have long-since been eroded away by wind and rain as the mountain slowly rises up. This is due to the fact that erosion is much faster than old-earth theoretical systems propose of the speed in which mountains are rising...which also disproves the overall speed of the mountain-rising, anyway.

You see, the problem with old-earth theories is that they are based on world-view assumptions that vastly contradict each other. On the one hand, the mountains are rising today...albeit very slowly, so they assume it's always been that way (which -- in itself -- is an unreasonable assumption). But erosion makes the rise of mountains nearly impossible to be detected, if not in reverse. Secondly, most of the world's surface would be flattened today if there had been billions of years of erosion.

Additionally, the saltification of the world's oceans at it's current rate would make the oceans only possible to be about 4000 to 6000 years old. If you can assume (whether rightly, or not, is irrelevant to the discussion) that the rate of saltification has always been about the same, then -- according to old-earth theory, the oceans should be so salty as to have been toxic to all life long before the theoretical evolution of the first organisms even had occurred. So, that alone disproves the possibility of evolution let alone old-earth ages.

Finally, by the rate of the moon's orbital escape from the earth, if you go far enough backwards in time to account for old-earth theories about the origins of the planet and evolution itself, the moon would be so close to the earth as to make evolution impossible as the tidal forces would make the earth's surface far too hot and covered in molten lava to sustain any life even as recently as one billion years ago.

So, whereas Young Earth Creationists like myself are willing to admit that our theory is only a likely (and not absolute) interpretation of the known data, believers in old-earth theories are generally unwilling to accept that their theories are self-defeating and so they push to have it's precepts forcibly taught in public educational systems at the expense of the tax payers while trying to block the logical teachings of young-earth theories just because it tends to conflict with the hallowed teachings of evolution.

To sum it all up, creationism is based on good science while evolution is based on bad science. Even if I were not a Creationist and didn't believe in God and His Bible -- because I am a very logical person who bases his science on observation and logic and not self-defeating conjecture -- I would have to reject evolution and assume some kind of intelligent design is responsible for the earth and all that is in it, today.