Pages

Jump to bottom

34 comments

1 researchok  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:41:58pm

As an unashamed believer, articles such as the one you refer too only serve to diminish faith and the faithful. Science and belief can and do coexist- but only when the two are not conflated.

There are legions of scientists who are believers. They view science as a reaffirmation of Creation, with scientific revelations as providing a better understanding of Creation. Their understanding is a personal one.

Faith has always worked best when it is a personal expression as opposed to one that is jammed down people's throats. That always backfires.

2 shutdown  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:47:30pm

Why is the following so difficult:
a) The Bible is the Word of God.
b) Man and Woman are imperfect, and cannot possibly comprehend the Word of God in its entire and complete glory.
c) Science is comprehensible and proof-based (otherwise our puny minds would not be able to work with it)
d) God went to a lot of Trouble to create a seamless system of scientific principles, many of which we Simply Do Not Get (but we are working on it!)
e) If you cannot corroborate God's Science with God's Word, you are simply demonstrating that you Do Not Understand God's Word, not that science is the work of Satan (why give the Devil credit for something as cool as quantum mechanics?)

3 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:53:36pm

If you read Genesis as opposed to brandishing it, it's clear that there are other people beside Adam and Eve running around. The double creation story makes it clear that humans are created in multiples, and when Cain strikes out on his own, he finds other humans.

The rabbinic explanation of why we hear only about the experience of one pair, when clearly there are more, is that future nations were thereby prevented from claiming a higher lineage from others.

If you narrow down your understanding of what Genesis means to the point where any proof it didn't happen just like in the Little Golden Bible illustrations throws you, you're reading it wrong.

4 shutdown  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 1:57:13pm

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist

Well said. There is also the popular rabbinical explanation that it is meaningful that the Tora begins with the letter "Bet" the second letter in the Hebrew alphabet, rather than "Aleph", the first: The Tora is not meant to be read as a historically accurate document, charting events from the beginning of time.

5 freetoken  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:00:30pm

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist


If you narrow down your understanding of what Genesis means to the point where any proof it didn't happen just like in the Little Golden Bible illustrations throws you, you're reading it wrong.

Yes. But the point I was trying to make (and perhaps should have made more clearly), is that Ham and the rest of the fundamentalists insist, and correctly I think, that the key theologian of the early church, Paul, really pinned the heart of his Christology on Jesus being the "second Adam" and that the original Adam was a real physical individual, and that every person alive is descended from that individual.

6 freetoken  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:01:50pm

Or, to put it more simply, the problem isn't with Genesis.

It's the whole NT doctrine web that is at stake.

7 shutdown  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 2:01:58pm

re: #5 freetoken

You make the point succinctly. I think the comments are just that - comments, by definition derivative; not criticism.

8 gehazi  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:15:50pm

re: #5 freetoken

Yes. But the point I was trying to make (and perhaps should have made more clearly), is that Ham and the rest of the fundamentalists insist, and correctly I think, that the key theologian of the early church, Paul, really pinned the heart of his Christology on Jesus being the "second Adam" and that the original Adam was a real physical individual, and that every person alive is descended from that individual.

It's relatively easy to work up an understanding of Paul that treats the Adam/Christ comparison as largely metaphor. You've got your crazies who act like "original sin" literally moves from person to person via the transmission of semen, but Paul is hardly that specific. In fact, a key point of Pauline theology is that Adam's sin caused a spiritual rather than a physical death.

Consider the following selection from Romans 5.12-14 (the cornerstone text for this comparison):

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Adam is called out as a type or a symbol of human sin. In the context of Genesis 3, sin comes into the world through one man (and even this assertion is obviously metaphor, since Eve was obviously involved), but the consequences of Adam's sin is (spiritual) death for Adam alone. Paul is specific: "death spread to all men because all sinned."

Ahem. Perhaps that's a bit too Bible-nerd for lgf, but suffice to say it's not particularly hard to reconcile a modern scientific understanding of human origins with a historic understanding of Jesus Christ.

You are of course, correct, that the fundies would wail at this kind of argument, saying it's liberal anti-Christian nonsense. Their particular worldview does depend on completely rejecting the scientific consensus, which is why they are very successful at one thing: driving young people away from the religiosity they cling to.

9 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:25:46pm

re: #5 freetoken

You made your point, it was clear. I think we are all exasperated by fundamentalist reading, especially so if you're a believer, since the idiots are providing the definition of 'religion'.

10 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:34:57pm

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist

The rabbinic explanation of why we hear only about the experience of one pair, when clearly there are more, is that future nations were thereby prevented from claiming a higher lineage from others.

This is a nice illustration of another principle. Frequently, the most commonly cited rabbinic explanation isn't the best explanation, but it's right on the money historically, anticipating Eugenics, Supercession, and other racially based ideologies.

Another such example is Ramban's explanation of Genesis. He basically describes the Big Bang--and then asks, if this is what really happened, why is it written in this form. He answers, in the future when the ownership of the Land of Israel is in dispute...

Good guy to take to the racetrack.

11 windsagio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 3:37:23pm

re: #10 Bob Levin

The problem with that kind of explanation is that it can frankly be taken both ways.

...

And hate to be ignorant, but doesn't the whole Noah thing kind of negate the need? I'd be the first to admit I'm not really very up on all the commentary involved.

12 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 4:26:26pm

re: #11 windsagio

The problem with that kind of explanation is that it can frankly be taken both ways.

Which ways? Could you be more specific?

And hate to be ignorant, but doesn't the whole Noah thing kind of negate the need? I'd be the first to admit I'm not really very up on all the commentary involved.

It's far from ignorant. You're actually getting it. The Torah is filled with passages that raise those very basic questions, that make you choose to ignore the Torah completely or dig deeper into it. You have to make a choice to dig deeper, every time. It's your choice. A lot of folks simply avoid the hard questions.

So, if the Torah is negating the idea of Eugenics and other similar theories, the Jews are left with the possibility that we are the descendants of Adam and Eve, since it's our book. Noah does negate that. In other words, don't even go there, to the idea of some sort of natural superiority. So, we begin with Abraham, who basically earned it through study and a persistent dedication to discovering truth.

13 windsagio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 4:43:33pm

re: #12 Bob Levin

Sorry, kind of gunshy after the last few days lol >>

I mean, 'prevented from claiming a higher lineage than others', implies that its a concern (or a possibility or whatever).

There's just an occasional turn of phrase that comes up and I'm like, 'what? People are really worried about that?'

PS: You're always good to talk to even if we're coming from very very different places, so thanks :D

14 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 5:06:38pm

re: #13 windsagio

There's just an occasional turn of phrase that comes up and I'm like, 'what? People are really worried about that?'

Yeah. There are thoughts that get into folks' heads, and those thoughts just eat up their brains, like a really bad computer virus. I watch quite a few shows about Nazi Germany. Mostly to answer questions I have. But you see this notion of Aryan superiority that is at the heart of Hitler's military decisions. It ended up killing millions of his own soldiers, such as his refusal to allow retreat--since the genetic superiority should prevail in battle.

There was one story that one of Adolph's childhood friends told. She was visiting one of his places and she told him that killing the Jews, the camps, are just wrong. He replied that thousands of his own soldiers were getting killed, which is upsetting the genetic balance of Europe--so to re-balance Europe, he had to kill Jews.

One of the repeating lessons in the Torah is--you may not believe this, but people really do think like this. Not a lot, but just enough to inflict a great deal of damage and pain.

PS: You're always good to talk to even if we're coming from very very different places, so thanks :D

Thank you. That is the main idea of this site, isn't it? To work it all out in a civilized, respectful way. It's hard not to get on board with that sentiment.

15 windsagio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 5:11:14pm

re: #14 Bob Levin

It just strikes me that the concern could be read as a little supremacist in of itself. "We have to show that we're the important ones!"

Altho you kind of covered that, thats why the focus is on Abraham, etc.

16 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:25:07pm

re: #15 windsagio

It just strikes me that the concern could be read as a little supremacist in of itself. "We have to show that we're the important ones!"

Nah, it's closer to--"we have to survive this." That's our history, right? Just struggling to survive. That's in the Torah too, not to get too confident, stay humble because you have so much to be humble about. Study, understand, or you'll see just how fast karma can come back to bite...and on and on.

It's translated as 'admonitions'. There are quite a few admonitions.

17 Bob Levin  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:32:14pm

re: #15 windsagio

Also, you might run across one or two Jewish people who give the impression that they are, uh, royalty. All you have to know is that the Torah does not give us room for that attitude. Not that they'll see you or recognize your existence. They won't see me either, if it's any comfort. ;-)

18 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:49:40pm

I just want to say this is the kind of rational, intelligent debate that makes me love LGF so much.

19 windsagio  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:53:18pm

re: #18 dragonfire1981

less debate more education :D

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 6:54:26pm

re: #6 freetoken

Or, to put it more simply, the problem isn't with Genesis.

It's the whole NT doctrine web that is at stake.

Yes, but maybe they need to remind themselves that Jesus founded the Church, and Paul was just an ideas man?

//

21 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 7:11:51pm

There's a simpler explanation to all of this that you may have forgotten from High School Biology. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. Therefore, there can not have been a single Adam or Eve (or Homo sapien couple) which gave birth to the rest of mankind, it was a process that involved many generations. You can be devout and still believe that Adam and Eve were the great^1000000 granparents to man-kind, but you reject that principle of evolution. A single genetic mutation can manifest itself within a population, but it is only until it becomes predominant and characterizes that population does a new species/phenotype become apparent.

22 freetoken  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 7:56:34pm

re: #21 RanchTooth

The people who hold the worldview which I am describing as "collapsed" won't even consider simple natural selection, much less the evolution of populations.

So without speaking of evolutionary mechanisms, simply pointing to modern genetics and genetic testing, which society on the whole is slowly adopting for everything from legal matters to specialized medicine administration - all of the momentum that goes with this embrace of genetics by modern society is now behind the obvious truth that there were not just two common ancestors for all of us, ever.

And without the descent from the sinned Adam, there is no original sin to inherit (whether inheritance be by physical or covenantal means.)

There are not two ancient parents for which we can be held accountable (through any causal mechanism) of their ultimately sinful action.

This throws the entire Pauline Christology for a loop, to say the least. This Christology is the central tenet of the beliefs of the majority of Americans who describe themselves as "evangelical", "fundamentalist", or "conservative" Christians.

That's why CT made it a cover story. That is why Biologos is trying (but have yet to succeed) in coming up with a solution.

The entire religion of a large swatch of Americana is in crisis. Not just because of genetics - there are many elements to this maelstrom. This is a (not sole) source of angst which drives so much of the followers of what we once thought of as the fringe right in American public life but now has been mainstreamed. Bachmann, Palin, etc are riding this wave of angst and want to ride it to even greater heights.

23 yasharki  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 4:07:46am

re: #21 RanchTooth

whargarbl.

24 yasharki  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 4:10:29am

re: #14 Bob Levin

So you base your historical views on "ze showz"? Are you for real?

25 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 7:27:30am

The more I have to deal with them the more convinced I am that many forms that Fundamentalism takes are not, in fact Christian, but rather pre-Christian paganism with Christian names on the mythology. This is different from, say, when the early Christians repurposed Saturnalia as Christmas (one glance at the tale of shepherds watching over the lambs will tell you that wasn't December!) but rather a wholesale abandonment of those things that make Christianity a viable faith to be replaced with magical thinking. The synthesis of Greek philosophy and Jewish philosophy that represents something very alien to a Fundamentalism that fears change and uncertainty above all else. True faith requires constant change, constant growth, constant uncertainty that what you are doing is what God wants and that you can only come to conclusions carefully and within that growth and change.

It's not really relevant, to me, if these people can't handle the idea that Genesis creation stories were written as metaphors to help people learn and grow; that it is Truth rather than literally true.

26 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 8:31:22am

I haven't had the time to read through all the comments.

However, I don't understand some of what you wrote.

1. What about mitochondrial Eve? I thought that her existence was established.

2. Even though they might not have been the first couple, there clearly had to be a first female ancestor to all of us, and likewise a common male ancestor.

Is the argument that the common male and female ancestor would not count as human and that amongst their offspring, they interbred to produce current homo-sapiens?

27 freetoken  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 2:43:04pm

re: #26 LudwigVanQuixote


Is the argument that the common male and female ancestor would not count as human and that amongst their offspring, they interbred to produce current homo-sapiens?

The issue at hand is a particularly Christian one, strongly embraced by Protestantism, the branch of Christianity that has been most dominant in American culture. The issue is this: why did Jesus have to die if he himself was sinless? The answer, stemming from original Pauline theology, is that Jesus is the second Adam - the first Adam separated man from God and as we are all (it is claimed) the first Adam's descendants we end up separated from God. Thus the second Adam likewise can, through one act, repay that transgression, and be the head of a whole new family.

Thus, if there indeed was not, did not exist, a first Adam, then it makes no sense to have a second one.

As for the most recent common ancestors, female (i.e., mitochondrial Eve) or male, the scientific assertion of "most recent" and "common" simply state that indeed if you and I or any other two people on the planet were to trace our lineage we would arrive, at some distant past, to a common female ancestor. However, she would not have been the only female ancestor we share (just keep dialing back the clock). And, she would not have lived at the same time that a common male ancestor lived.

So, if any "Abrahamic" religion wants to impute a federal separation of mankind from El/YHWH/Allah the problem is there has been shown (via genetics) to not have been a single individual who was alone (with or without God.) There never was any federal head of humanity nor anyone who would qualify as such.

And, furthermore, if you want to claim that God just chose any upright-walking (Homo genus) individual at some particular time in the past, and that God then specified that individual as the federal head, assigned that person sole responsibility for condemning the whole of humanity through his actions... then that seems pretty arbitrary of God. It'd sort of be like you or me picking one salmon out of a stream in Washington, looking at it and saying "You, Mr. Chinook, will be the head of all salmon-hood on Earth", even though there are many sub-species of salmon and even interbreeding species of that fish all around the world. Very arbitrary assignment of headship.

28 Bob Levin  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 3:02:09pm

re: #24 yasharki

I don't understand your question. If you can restate it, that would be good. It would be several days before I can reply though.

29 RanchTooth  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 9:07:40pm

re: #28 Bob Levin

I don't understand your question. If you can restate it, that would be good. It would be several days before I can reply though.

I didn't even bother asking what he or she meant with his or her reply.

30 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 9:51:31pm

re: #26 LudwigVanQuixote

I haven't had the time to read through all the comments.

However, I don't understand some of what you wrote.

1. What about mitochondrial Eve? I thought that her existence was established.

Indeed she was. There is also a hypothetical y-chromosome adam. But genetics indicates that they lived many tens of thousands of years apart.

2. Even though they might not have been the first couple, there clearly had to be a first female ancestor to all of us, and likewise a common male ancestor.


Mitochondrial eve and Y-Adam didn't live at the same time so they couldn't have been a couple. And the current research is saying that there never was just two humans. Population bottlenecks can be traced in our genetics. There was a major bottleneck in the human population roughly 70,000 years ago around the time of the Toba supervolcano eruption. But that was down to a minimum of perhaps fifteen thousand individuals, not two.

31 ProGunLiberal  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 10:32:43pm

re: #27 freetoken

Reading this, I'm reminded of the fact that Protestant Christianity and Sunni Islam have an odd relationship. Which explains why this fanaticist strain is jumping.

However, the Muslim World has much bigger problems than this. Getting out of the Religious Dark Age caused by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the rise of Saudi Arabia. I think that 500 years from now, this past century will be regarded by us the same way Christians regard the Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

32 ProGunLiberal  Fri, Jun 3, 2011 10:41:18pm

Speaking of things in Holy Books, I found this on Cracked. Apparently, there is now some idea what happened (scientifically) to Sodom and Gomorrah

Scientists now think that "something" might have been a half-mile wide asteroid. Before it could land, it apparently morphed into a three-mile-wide fire ball before clipping a mountain range and exploding in a rain of fiery debris. But don't beat yourself up for not getting that from the Biblical account.

About 150 years ago, two seemingly unrelated discoveries were made in different parts of the world. First, a Cuneiform tablet known as "The Planisphere," which was a copy of a sky chart from June 29, 3123 BC. Among the stars it seems to depict a moving object, one so large that it could be seen from the ground.

Meanwhile, over in Austria, geologists discovered evidence of what they think was an asteroid impact site. They found signs of explosions and rock-melting, typically caused when an asteroid breaks apart before impact, raining hell down on everything below.
You can see where this is going. But the impact was in Austria, right? What does this have to do with Sodom and Gomorrah?
Well, According to the scientists, the mushroom cloud of the explosion would have reentered the Earth's atmosphere over the Mediterranean Sea, and would have flashed across the Middle East, leaving a trail of debris and superheated air in its wake. To quote the article, the heat "would be enough to ignite any flammable material -- including human hair and clothes. It is probable more people died under the plume than in the Alps due to the impact blast."

Via wheelerroad.org
So imagine you're a guy living in a city in the Middle East, thousands of years ago. Maybe you herd sheep. You know absolutely nothing of asteroids or meteors or comets. Suddenly, in the middle of the night, the air fills with smoke, ash and debris. And then the air gets hot -- not hot like a summer day, but hot like the oven you use to fire clay pots.
Then, all around you, screams. Everything that is flammable spontaneously combusts. You are now on fire.

It would be to your eyes nothing less than the fiery, vengeful judgment of God. Believers will say that's just what it was. Nonbelievers will say the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is just the handed-down account of whatever refugees were lucky enough to escape the now-forgotten burning city -- and from witnesses who stood, horrified, and watched it happen from afar (and "saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace").
You can be damned well sure that no ancient Middle Eastern nomad would forget the time they saw an entire city on the horizon spontaneously burst into flame. That's the kind of story that gets told and retold for a few thousand years.

33 BishopX  Sat, Jun 4, 2011 8:51:02am

re: #25 wlewisiii

The more I have to deal with them the more convinced I am that many forms that Fundamentalism takes are not, in fact Christian, but rather pre-Christian paganism with Christian names on the mythology. This is different from, say, when the early Christians repurposed Saturnalia as Christmas (one glance at the tale of shepherds watching over the lambs will tell you that wasn't December!) but rather a wholesale abandonment of those things that make Christianity a viable faith to be replaced with magical thinking. The synthesis of Greek philosophy and Jewish philosophy that represents something very alien to a Fundamentalism that fears change and uncertainty above all else. True faith requires constant change, constant growth, constant uncertainty that what you are doing is what God wants and that you can only come to conclusions carefully and within that growth and change.

It's not really relevant, to me, if these people can't handle the idea that Genesis creation stories were written as metaphors to help people learn and grow; that it is Truth rather than literally true.

While I generally agree with you that parts of modern fundamentalism don't bear a great deal of resemblance to christian doctrine, I think you have to be very careful defining what you mean when you say "Christianity".

For much of the church's history, Christianity as practiced by the masses didn't bear a terribly close resemblance to christian doctrine, often in ways that directly contravened the bible. Examples of this include the sale of indulgences, priests charging fees for the sacraments, the elevation of the devil to place with of power of the same order of magnitude as god. Fundamentalist Christianity differs from older denominations in that it never underwent a period of extreme orthodoxy caused by religious schism.

I think the extreme doctrinal disputes that gave rise to Calvinism, Lutheranism and reformed the catholic church are historically aberrational. For most of christian history no one cared what village priests were doing, teaching or preaching, and many of them were doing some pretty wild stuff.

34 SidewaysQuark  Sat, Jun 4, 2011 9:49:43am

re: #2 imp_62

Why is the following so difficult:

Because science is like, hard and stuff.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
EVGENY POBOZHIY QUINTET - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy Quintet - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy - guitar, compositionAnton Chekurov - saxNikolai Sidorenko - keysSergey Korchagin - bassAlexander Kulkov - drumsRecorded live @ Blues-minus studio, MoscowViktor Farafontov - sound engineerAndrey Galyamin - videoSergey Gasparyan - mixing2019 ...
Thanos
1 day, 4 hours ago
Views: 208 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 191201 It was an ‘easy’ unchallenging weekend. While low key, we got a lot done. We worked on the upper wall, setting and pounding in the 72 bags we dropped in last week. There are now two courses done completely ...
Dangerman (misuser of the sarc tag)
1 day, 14 hours ago
Views: 209 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Marvel Studios’ Black Widow - Official Teaser Trailer Marvel Studios' Black Widow is in theaters May 1, 2020. ► Subscribe to Marvel: bit.ly► See the poster: marvel.com► Learn more: marvel.com Follow Marvel on Twitter: ‪@marvelLike Marvel on Facebook: ‪facebook.com For even more news, stay tuned to:Tumblr: ‪marvelentertainment.tumblr.comInstagram: ...
Thanos
2 days, 10 hours ago
Views: 318 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Commanded to Love Some reflections on the the crucial role emotion can play in keeping us stuck in abuse — and in recovery and immunisation. You can support the channel at: patreon.com--opening quote:‘feel crime’ — the crime of feeling an emotion that ...
Thanos
2 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 1,297 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Sony Overtakes Nikon to Become Number Two Camera Company Behind Canon ony has been aggressively coming after the camera market for several years now, and it seems their efforts are paying off, as they have now overtaken Nikon for the second position behind Canon. Nikkei is reporting that Sony is ...
Thanos
4 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 552 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
The Weeknd - Blinding Lights (Audio) Official audio for The Weeknd "Blinding Lights" - available everywhere now: theweeknd.co ►Subscribe to The Weeknd on YouTube: theweeknd.co ►Follow The Weeknd:@theweekndfacebook.cominstagram.comtheweeknd.comSubscribe to YouTube Music: theweeknd.co ►"Blinding Lights" Lyrics:I been tryna callI’ve been on my own for long enoughMaybe ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 539 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Tuxedo - Get the Money (Feat. CeeLo Green) Official audio of Tuxedo's "Get The Money (Feat. CeeLo Green)" Stream now: tuxedo.lnk.to Subscribe to the official Tuxedo Channel here: smarturl.it Lyrics:Get the moneyAll the timeYeah we want itDollar signs We’ll pile it up to the skyTen miles highNo ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 545 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Stray Dog -Tramp (How It Is)From the album 'Stray Dog'1973
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 568 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Marcus King - the Well (Official Music Video) Order / stream here "El Dorado:" mk.lnk.toListen to "The Well: mk.lnk.to “The Well” is off the new solo debut album from Marcus King. “El Dorado” out January 17th, 2020. “The Well” was directed by Reid Long Marcus King’s debut ...
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 547 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
DARPA Seeks Pathogen Detectors That Use CRISPR to Run 1, 00 Tests at Once IEEE Spectrum - IEEE Spectrum The U.S. Department of Defense has put out a call to researchers to develop devices that detect pathogenic threats by performing up to 1,000 diagnostic tests in fewer than 15 minutes. The devices ideally would determine the presence of ...
Thanos
5 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 580 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook