Question about Noah’s flood as a local event

It is remarkable how strong a grip Henry Morris’ idea of a worldwide flood that laid down all the rock layers has over minds of millions of Americans……what evidence is there for the flood as a local event? A worldwide one?

1 Like

Well there is no evidence of a global flood. Three billion years ago our planet may have been a water world. I don’t know enough about it. But there was only microscopic life then. All the evidence we do have points against a global flood since life has been on land. What disproves it the most in my opinion is the fossil record. A global flood killing almost all land life would have either had corpses all mixed up in a disorganized way or either something like layered by mass, size or density. But we don’t see that. We see life organized showing a common descent as basal forms took on more and more divergent traits.

As for localized floods. First you have to decide where was it? Africa? Near middle eastern places. Mesopotamia. Now we do see evidence of numerous floods in the world. We can look at NatGeo and see it. I don’t know how many floods or to what extent those places have been flooded. But I see various posts on them.

I think that the flood is a myth. It’s not a real story. It’s fiction. It seems to fit the same tropes as the Mesopotamian bronze and Iron Age. The Epic of Gilgamesh for example.

To me to really understand this what I felt was most helpful was .

  1. Tim Mackie’s “ The Bible Project “ podcast episodes on Chaotic Waters.
  2. Pete Enns “ The Bible for Normal People” podcast episodes on Ruining Genesis and the ones on the flood and document sources.
  3. “Literature and History” podcast by Doug Metzger. The first few episodes touched up a bit on Genesis as literature.
4 Likes

It is interesting, and plenty of ink has been spilled over the topic. Morris himself credits a lot of his work to George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist who came up with many of the arguments found in scientific creationism. I’ve skimmed a little bit of Price’s work from the early 20th century, and it is shocking how similar it is to the arguments being used by modern YEC’s 100 years later.

I can also see why scientific creationism is alluring to Christians. They are looking for a concrete justification for their beliefs, and if they don’t have a solid understanding of science they may be fooled by the arguments used by creation scientists like Morris. I also think echoes of this approach can be seen in modern apologetics where (some) Christians use arguments they think are logically sound, but tend to fall apart when critically examined. Creation science was not formulated to change the minds of scientists in much the same way that the majority of apologetics is not meant to change the minds of non-believers. I see a lot of crossover between the two.

There’s no evidence of a worldwide flood in the last few billion years. A local flood? Those happen pretty much wherever there is a river at some point in history.

4 Likes

The majority of Christians had accepted that the Earth was far older than 6000-or-so years. The one thing that was difficult to accept was that humans were physically related to monkeys The geologists had been generally accepted in saying that the Earth was millions of years old, in the early 19th century - Lord Kelvin’s last estimate was something more than 20 million years. That was before radioactivity was understood. Since then there has been lots of lines of evidence - ice cores, for example - which nails down many millions of years.

3 Likes

For a global event, the textual evidence is weak, let alone the scientific.

As for “local”, I don’t like the word because it is used to imply that people are making light of a flood that wiped out the known world, but there is evidence of floods that inundated most of the Tigris-Euphrates basin, and then there’s the one that inundated that plus much of Arabia.

“Myth” does not equal “fiction”. The account reads like mythologized history.

1 Like

It’s not hard to imagine – I once met Morris and he struck me as very sincere, but with the manner of a very successful con man.

Which is why it is crap in terms of evangelism; it drives more people away than it attracts by such a margin that it makes 99.99 fine gold look impure.
It’s a scheme for encouraging the gullible part of the “choir”.

1 Like

To me myth is a form of fiction. I don’t think it’s mythicized history at all. Mythicized history is history that has mythological elements added to it. That’s not just myth. Which is why I called it a myth, not mythicized history, because there is no reason to even take it as anything remotely historical. It’s 3 paragraphs, surrounded by stuff like talking flying snakes, blood that screams, a god that lives above the land and has to fly down to see what’s happening, a tower trying to reach heaven and all languages suddenly created and so on.

Could there have literally been some dude and his family in the Middle East who saved a dozen or so animals on a boat from a flood for a few days? Sure. Lol. Could have happened hundreds of times. But do I still think that is the basis for a story like what we find in Genesis 6-9? Can’t imagine so. There is nothing historically anywhere showcasing that specifically in the last few thousand years there that I know of.

For me it’s like the horror movie strangers that says it’s based off of a real story. The real story is that when a man was a kid, he got spooked out because one night someone knocked on his door, and when intents opened it no one was there. It scared him. That memory , probably of kids playing ding dong ditch, stuck with him. As an adult he turned that nothingness into a horror franchise about a group of masked tortuous killers that shows up to isolated houses on Halloween night torturing and killing almost everyone in the house before fleeing and never getting caught even after doing it several times.

So could you call that mythicized history…… maybe but I would just call it fiction.

There is very little credible and unrefutable evidence that a Global Flood occurred.

We can however look at the world as a whole; and ask at least one question:

If the Grand Canyon was carved by the retreating flood, or even the advancing flood, and there was no particular or peculiar predisposition at that site to carve a deep valley; then we should (if it was in fact a “global flood”) see that particular feature, randomly, all over the globe, since the rock layers are the same and similar, and the water allegedly covered “everywhere”.

2 Likes

Have you ever purchased and read any of Morris’s “Signature Series” on creation and the flood? I have the series and I’m reading his book “Scientific Creationism” for the second time.

Below is the first two pages of the bibliography in this book…I do not see reliance here on SDA minister McCready Price but i do see a lot of other scientists being referenced

Here is the first page of his bibliography in Scientific Creationism:

The books and periodicals listed below are recommended for all school libraries in order to provide students and teachers access to a fair sample of the available literature on scientific creationism. All books listed are believed to be currently in print. I. Books by Creationist Scientists Emphasizing the Scientific Aspects of Creationism Anderson, J. Kerby, and Harold G. Coffin, Fossils in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 96 p. Andrews, E.H., God, Science and Evolution (Welwyn, Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press 1980), 129 p. Arndts, Russell, and William Overn, Isochron Dating and the Mixing Model (Minneapolis, MN: Bible-Science Assoc., 1983) 36 p. Austin, Steven A., Catastrophes in Earth History (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1984), 318 p. Aw, S.E., Chemical Evolution: An Examination of Current Ideas (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1982) 206 p. Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983), 132 p. Barnes, Thomas G., Physics of the Future (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983), 208 p. Bowden, Malcolm, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications, 1977), 258 p. Camp, Robert S., editor, A Critical Look at Evolution (Atlanta, GA: Religion, Science and Communication Research and Development Corp., 1972), 212 p. Clark, Harold W., Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures, 1968), 239 p. Clark, Harold W., New Creationism (Nashville, TN: Southern Publ. Assoc., 1980) 128 p. Clark, Marlyn E., Our Amazing Circulatory System (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1976), 64 p. Clark, Robert E.D., Darwin: Before and After (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1867), 192 p. Coffin, Harold G., Creation: Accident or Design? (Washington: Review and Herald, 1969), 512 p. Cook, Melvin A., Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish co., 1966), 353 p. Coppedge, James, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), 276 p. Cousins, Frank W., Fossil Man (Hants, England: Evolution Protest Movement, 1971), 138 p. Daly, Reginald, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1972), 403 p. Davidheiser, Bolton, Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 372 p. Dewar, Douglas, The Transformist Illusion (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publ., 1955), 306 p. Dillow, Joseph C., The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1981), 479 p. Enoch, H., Evolution or Creation (Madras, India: Union of Evangelical Students of India, 1966), 172 p.

Here is the second page:

Frair, Wayne, and Wm. P. Davis, A Case for Creation (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983),155 p. Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1979), 198 p. Gish, Duane T., Speculations and Experiments on the Origin of Life (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1972), 41 p. Gish, Duane T., and Donald Rohrer, Up With Creation (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1978), 341 p. Gish, Duane T., and Henry M. Morris, The Battle for Creation (San Diego: Creation-Life, 1976) 321 p. Hedtke, Randall, The Secret of the Sixth Edition (New York: Vantage, 1983), 136 p. Howe, George, editor, Speak to the Earth (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), 463 p. Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis and Evolution (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1970), 544 p. Lammerts, W.E., editor, Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 343 p. Lammerts, W.E., editor, Why Not Creation? (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 388 p. Lester, Lane P., Cloning: Miracle or Menace? (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980), 156 p. Lester, Lane P., and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 207 p. Lubenow, Marvin, From Fish to Gish (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1983), 304 p. Mandock, R.L.N., Scale Time Versus Geological Time in Radioisotope Age Determination (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983), 160 p. Marsh, Frank L., Life, Man and Time (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures, 1967), 238 p. Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1976), 150 p. Moore, John N., How to Teach Origins without ACLU Interference (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1983), 382 p. Moore, John N., Questions and Answers on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), 110 p. Morris, Henry M. Evolution in Turmoil (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1982), 190 p. Morris, Henry M., The Scientific Case for Creation (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1977), 87 p. Morris, Henry M., The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1974), 217 p. Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. 1964), 103 p. Morris, Henry M., Wm. W. Boardman, and Robert F. Koontz, Science and Creation (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Center, 1971), 98 p. Morris, Henry M., and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life 1982), 306 p. Morris, Henry M., and Donald Rohrer, Creation: The Cutting Edge (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1982), 240 p. Morris, Henry M., and Donald Rohrer, The Decade of Creation (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1980), 316 p. Morris, Henry M., and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), 518 p. Morris, Henry M., et al., A Symposium on Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968), 156 p. Morris, John D., Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and the People Who Knew Them (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life, 1980), 240 p. Mulfinger, George, editor, Design and Origins in Astronomy (Norcross, GA: C.R.S.

Morris, Henry. Scientific Creationism (The Henry Morris Signature Collection) (pp. 323-324). Master Books. Kindle Edition.

Given this forum has members who are known people of science, the number of complete wives’ tales claims made here in order to “have a go at someone else’s beliefs” is both unscientific and unbelievable!

Now to the O.P directly…

The very first evidence of Noahs flood being a global flood is found within the text itself.
A normal reading of language is all that is needed in order to find it…

Now for those who wish to complain the bible cant be used…if it wasn’t for the Bible, humanity would have little documented evidence for Noah’s flood, so it is a primary source of evidence (as was the case with the Hittite empire…which up until recent times was not found anywhere else in the record)

Genesis 6:1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them,

5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Hebrews 11:7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in godly fear built an ark to save his family. By faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

13Then God said to Noah, “The end of all living creatures has come before Me, because through them the earth is full of violence. Now behold, I will destroy both them and the earth.

1 Peter 3 18For Christ also sufferedd for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19in whome He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

2 Peter 1: 16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
19We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.

2Peter 2: God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c 7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man

lets also not forget what Christ taught regarding Noahs flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah…

I put the following into google AI

“Christ statement about Noahs flood”

Google AI results - based on the search engine library of knowledge concerning the theology of Christ states:

Please NOTE…all of my referencing above is based entirely on Scripture and its internal explanations. It does not require any further interpretation than what is necessary to read normal language. Even the Google AI result is based on a scholarly recognition that the correct interpretation of scripture is its internal one.

Also, the “genre argument” fails in the above examples…that’s because the same interpretative claims are made across thousands of years of time with different biblical authors/writers who all claim divine inspiration.

The ones i have referenced here are Moses, The Apostle Peter, The Apostle Paul and Christ.

The fact that they all agree proves we have the correct interpretation.

Lets also not forget, Christ is God…the very person who created us all and the earth in the first place. If God is omnipotent and all powerful and all knowledgable, then He should know the history of the earth!

The above evidence clearly proves that the error lies in the naturalism/uniformatarianism world view…not the Christian one. It has nothing to do with science…there are science arguments on both sides of this debate…for Christians, this is purely a human interpretative difference and nothing more.

A couple of things i feel are important to add…we should not exclude other Christians because they do not align perfectly with our own beliefs. They may be in error or we may be in error. God is the judge and as far as I can tell, Christ simply said:
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
“in as much as you do it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me”.

The Apostle John also wrote in Revelation 14:12
“Here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.”

Paul and Silas made the statement in Acts 16:31

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your household.”

Whitcomb and Morris drew heavily on Price’s geological claims in their book, The Genesis Flood. However, they did not give credit to Price, as they were trying to sell young-earth creationism to the conservative Christian public and knew that SDA connections would put many off. Later there was more acknowledgement of Price’s influence. Price relied on his “common sense” rather than on adequate research to justify his claims. For example, he tried to attack the reality of the geologic column by claiming that certain genera of clams occur off and on through the geologic column, rather than continuously. I don’t know what sources he used, but the layers supposedly lacking the clams had been known to contain them for many decades if not longer before Price wrote. Price slandered William Smith, claiming that his discovery of the sequence of fossils in the geologic column was a fiction based on old-earth assumptions. In reality, Smith was perhaps the last honest young-earth geologist; it was not until a couple of pastors pointed out to him that the numerous layers in the earth implied a lot of time that Smith thought about questions of age, rather than just the practical use of recognizing layers. Price’s denial of the reality of thrust faults was directly carried over by Whitcomb and Morris, though the latter authors contributed the dishonest photo purporting to show the non-existence of a particular fault when they photographed the wrong spot. (To be precise, the photo may have been an honest mistake but keeping it in the book after the error was pointed out by other young-earthers was not.)

By the mid-1770’s, it was known that geology unambiguously supported a vast age for the earth. It wasn’t until the 1840’s that a global flood could be ruled out, although it was clear that most geological layers were not produced by a flood by the late 1700’s.

Probably some volcanoes stuck out of the ocean in the Hadean and early Archaean; certainly since about 3.8 billion years ago there have been continents.

As David Montgomery learned and pointed out in The Rocks Don’t Lie, big floods happen and are memorable. There’s no good reason to doubt that Noah’s flood was a major regional flood, devastating his community. The emphasis is on its theological significance, not on geography. Likewise, there’s no good reason to trust AI answers. There is no reason to support the claim that Jesus believed that the flood was worldwide and destroyed all living things on earth. Jesus did not compare the flood to the impact of His second coming. He compared the flood to the unexpectedness of His second coming, and also cited the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as another event that took people by surprise. This tells us nothing of the geographic extent, one way or another. The NT affirms that the flood was a real event, but gives no indication as to geographic (rather than social) extent; claiming that the NT supports a global flood is based not on internal explanations but on external assumptions.

A “normal reading of language” is biased by the assumptions brought from our backgrounds. The reality is that a global flood had been questioned on both biblical and scientific grounds throughout church history. If we seek to rely on the Bible as its own interpreter, we need to do our best to learn what is known about how the original audience would have understood it, what is known about the original languages, etc. But the Bible does not stand in a vacuum. Unlike an encyclopedia, it is not intended to cover every piece of information needed to understand it. How do you know that a flood would possibly kill anything? The Bible never says that air-breathing organisms have problems when kept underwater too long. That reflects information from our observations of the functioning of the physical creation, or in other words, from outside scientific knowledge.

The Lake Missoula floods are a classic geological example of flood deposits; various tsunami deposits are known as well. We have lots of studies that show what types of deposits come from floods versus varied other causes. These are applied to the geological record to

4 Likes

These are applied to the geological record to determine the processes at work in the formation of the various geological deposits. Flood geology does not take the honest approach of comparing particular rock layers to what is formed by various processes and finding the best match; it claims that everything was deposited by the Flood no matter what the reality.

3 Likes

This is false: it is necessary to ignore the normal use of Hebrew words in order to get a global flood; specifically the use of כֹּל (kohl) and of אֶרֶץ (eretz [or aretz]). This has been explained to you more than once, yet you stick to the mangling of the normal use of Hebrew.’

My complaint is that the Bible should be used as it was written, not mangled as YEC requires!

There is no “evidence for Noah’s flood” in the Bible because the Bible does not fit into the modern scientific worldview that YEC demands.
Nowhere in the scripture is there any stated intention of adhering to scientific accuracy, which means that making the text talk science is unbiblical.

And you know what Google’s AI gives you? It doesn’t provide facts, it provides two things: an agglomeration of the most common beliefs on the internet, crossed with what it thinks the user wants to hear – that’s how its algorithm works.

No, it isn’t – it depends on ignoring the biblical worldview and replacing it with a MSWV; it depends on ignoring the ordinary use and meaning of Hebrew words.

The “genre argument” only fails because YEC refuses to admit that the Bible was not written to fit their modern scientific worldview!
I keep asking and you keep ignoring this: where does the scripture anywhere say it intends to be scientifically accurate?

But you ignore what those interpretive claims actually are and replace them with a particular modern one. It’s circular reasoning: you assume that they are writing like modern science reporters and use that assumption to show that they are writing like modern science reporters.

They weren’t – they didn’t know modern science, they wouldn’t have agreed with it if they had known it, and they weren’t interested in scientific accuracy in the first place. That’s the big heresy of YEC: they throw away nearly all the theology and replace it with shallow ‘scientific’ claims that have next to zero evidence. And yes, I mean heresy, because throwing away the message of the inspired writers is a denial of God.

No, there aren’t. On one side is honest science, on the other is lying, misrepresentation, ignoring data, irrational claims, and more.

3 Likes

Indeed the vocabulary used by Peter and others was long recognized as indicating that the Flood covered the world known to the original writer (or to Noah; there’s no way to settle that question, either). We use “cosmos” to mean the entirety of the universe, but in Koine Greek it generally referred to the organized world of humans (just as one example, to many Greeks the “bar-bar-os”, those who spoke anything but Greek, were not part of the kosmos).

Quite so.

Despite YEC (and SDA) ‘theology’ insisting that it does!

As is evident by its frequent references and allusions to other sources, e.g “the Book of Jasher” (reference) and the book of Enoch (allusion).

Ah – good point!

Including floods that filled basins as opposed to running off to the sea – occasionally resulting in what would be impossibilities in a global flood, e.g. salt deposits later covered by dirt/soil.

2 Likes

You might try this with Google

what evidence shows a global flood did not happen

The all knowing Google doesn’t support your position. It just gives you back what you expected.

1 Like

Here ya go:

This was written by Kurt Wise, a staunch YEC.

2 Likes

Do YEC people have a narrative for how Noah is supposed to have travelled the world collecting kangaroos, polar bears, chimpanzees, llamas etc etc? It is just not feasible - and he would have had to put them back!

1 Like

Oh yeah.

Collecting the animals is the easy part. YEC generally holds that before the antediluvian Earth was a single supercontinent, a creationist Gondwana. As per Genesis 6:20, “Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive”, the cargo came to Noah. This included kangaroos and some representative of the creationist bear kind, and care not to leave out sauropods, pterosaurs, tyrannosaurs, and hundreds of other extinct genera.

Putting them back is much trickier. The modern continents are supposed to then have been in place and isolated, so the biogeography which reflects evolutionary distribution has to be given a YEC explaination. Various proposals include transport on floating supermats of vegetation, ice age land bridges, and just shrugging. Why marsupials, which include many different kinds, beat it to Australia, and lemurs, also including many kinds, all settled on Madagascar, is left as an exercise. Also seldom discussed is the nervous trek of the sole remaining herbivore pairs under the hungry gaze of the predators. Once the mom and dad cats arrived at one destination, they gave birth to lions, leopards, cheetahs, and various species which promptly thrived and then just as promptly went extinct. They then migrated some more and in a matter of a few centuries sired saber toothed cats and other species, which also grew to enormous populations only to usually die out due to unspecified changes in unspecified conditions. Some goats turned into sheep, or the other way around, even though the Bible never confuses those, and no civilization which domesticated these animals seems to have noticed.

And there you have it.

2 Likes

Certain Turkish Muslim flood geology advocates claimed that Noah’s family was using cell phones to coordinate rounding up the animals, if that counts as a narrative.

Genesis includes both a command to gather the animals and a reference to God sending them to Noah, so an overly “strict history” reading can find a discrepancy there.

More generally, biogeography is a major line of evidence for evolution that is largely ignored or dismissed in YEC and anti-evolutionary ID. It was a key observation influencing both Darwin’s and Wallace’s thoughts. Years ago, Kurt Wise dismissed it in a book by saying it’s just Australian mammals. But that is the textbook example because it’s the only thing most people have heard of. When I read that, I took a little time to think and came up with about 40 examples that I was aware of, without any research. It’s not just the kangaroos that have to hop to Australia from Ararat without stopping anywhere in between; koalas need to have eucalyptus trees all the way there, and even the koalas are rather faster than the land and freshwater snails and freshwater clams or the plants that had to get to Australia. Hummingbirds in the New World are highly modified miniature swifts but superficially similar to the Old World passerine sunbirds - why did they go different places when they could fly? How do you get distinctive radiations of organisms in different parts of the world supposedly during the Flood, like the varied mollusk lineages in the huge lakes of the Paratethys or different dinosaurs in the different continents from mid-Mesozoic onward as Pangea had broken up?

3 Likes

I laughed so hard Knox looked at me to see if something was wrong. :rofl:

Another black mark against Wise.

Invent lots of science fiction.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.