If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube) Hero The 2009 Golden Crocoduck Award winner has been announced. Congratulations to the truly deserving recipient   (youtube.com) divider line 38
More: Hero  
•       •       •

5538 clicks; posted to Video » on 28 Oct 2009 at 8:57 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2009-10-28 06:20:03 PM
Were we supposed to watch all that?
 
2009-10-28 09:10:51 PM
I got 14 1/2 seconds into that and spent twice the amount of time writing this comment. You got a problem with that? Wanna fight about it?
farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2009-10-28 09:11:18 PM
tl;dw
 
2009-10-28 09:31:56 PM
wookalar: Were we supposed to watch all that?

Summary

taddelay.files.wordpress.com

This idiot is an idiot
 
2009-10-28 09:33:06 PM
Potholer rocks, and the Golden Crocoduck was well earned this year!
 
2009-10-28 09:33:34 PM
I
 
2009-10-28 09:33:55 PM
People who argue on YouTube are exemplars of the theory of evolution. I predict that they'll have died out in a generation or two.
 
2009-10-28 09:34:21 PM
bcbwilla: I

I love potholer54.
 
2009-10-28 09:49:05 PM
I like the part where they show CERN'S LHC and fail to mention the Higgs Boson.
 
2009-10-28 10:30:49 PM
14 seconds. Then relized it was some lame English humor thing.
 
2009-10-28 10:39:20 PM
AHHHH, my Hallowe'en costume: a banana shaped Crocoduck.
 
2009-10-28 10:43:58 PM
While I watched that, a small globule of spittle that had slipped out earlier while I was talking on the phone undried itself, levitated 12 cm in front of me, and screamed in a surprisingly loud voice for such a tiny spittle globule, "Stop watching this! It's stupid!!!"

The spittle then fell to the ground and was absorbed quite rapidly into the carpet fibers.
 
2009-10-28 10:52:44 PM
Man I'm siding with the narrator obviously but that video is almost enough to make me believe in creationism. Boring and so overwhelmingly long. Didn't anyone with intelligence throw that banana guy to the wolves anyways so many years ago?
 
2009-10-28 10:57:04 PM
Wow, creationists are ignorant. There's a newsflash worthy story if there ever was one.
 
2009-10-28 10:57:12 PM
img94.imageshack.us

I AM A BANANA!!!
 
2009-10-28 11:36:26 PM
homepage.mac.com
 
2009-10-28 11:43:40 PM
LindLTaylor: 14 seconds. Then relized it was some lame English humor thing.

I bow to your superior intellect; I wasted way too much of my life on that piece of crap.
 
2009-10-29 12:12:37 AM
What was that one guys name that was explaining expansion? Aaron Raw/Rah/Roz? I wanna watch that video.
 
2009-10-29 12:48:23 AM
EL_FABREZ: What was that one guys name that was explaining expansion? Aaron Raw/Rah/Roz? I wanna watch that video.

AronRa.
 
2009-10-29 01:58:54 AM
Dimensio: EL_FABREZ: What was that one guys name that was explaining expansion? Aaron Raw/Rah/Roz? I wanna watch that video.

AronRa.



Awesome. Thanks.
 
2009-10-29 02:02:16 AM
EL_FABREZ: What was that one guys name that was explaining expansion? Aaron Raw/Rah/Roz? I wanna watch that video.

I'll make it easy for you. I'm only linking AronRa's videos, and not the videos he was responding to from QQOQQ, to save your brain from caving in. He "quotes" the relevant parts, regardless.

Where did EVERYTHING come from?
Having to repeat myself
No sense pretending

Of course, QQOQQ claimed victory at the end of the exchange.
 
2009-10-29 02:17:10 AM
The only thing this proved was that proponents from both sides of this argument make unwatchable videos.
 
2009-10-29 02:28:28 AM
i liked the part when i closed the video.

...


yeah.
 
2009-10-29 02:45:50 AM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: I AM A BANANA!!!

i3.ytimg.com
"I'm a computer"
 
2009-10-29 03:28:09 AM
goneja: Man I'm siding with the narrator obviously but that video is almost enough to make me believe in creationism. Boring and so overwhelmingly long. Didn't anyone with intelligence throw that banana guy to the wolves anyways so many years ago?

Yes, but he keeps at it.
 
2009-10-29 05:15:11 AM
Horrible. Long and boring. His epic pwn of the creationist consists of saying that the 'big bang' was an expansion, not a bang, and that the material coalesced from energy. OK, that's fine. Where did the energy come from? Why did space expand rapidly, then taper off?

I rationalize the 'big bang' in my own mind by extrapolating the Hawking Radiation phenomenon, where a particle/anti-particle pop into existence out of the vacuum and annihilate themselves in less time than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets as the lower limit of quantum measurability. I figure there is some meta-vacuum where universes pop into existence spontaneously all the time. All the anthropic questions - 'why are the physical constants so perfectly tuned?' - I guess that if it's possible, then it must happen. Other universes just aren't stable to the degree that ours is.

That's more sensible to me than a non-coporeal sentient being who exists outside of time and space, can create anything by volition, and yet demands that desert people burn sheep to please him.
 
2009-10-29 06:29:06 AM
I've always liked how that guy goes on about the banana being the 'Atheist Nightmare'.

First of all, the modern yellow banana wouldn't even exist without human beings. It would go extinct in only a few years if we didn't continue to perpetuate it's existence and it's the result of a genetic mutation.
 
2009-10-29 11:09:32 AM
Jodeo: Well THAT's a relief!

The universe's 'big bang' was caused by a singularity that either
a) Has always existed and/or
b) Caused itself to exist

...and then proceeded without any outside influence (e.g. beyond the known universe/ylm) to expand -- an effect without a cause.

Wow. Now I can sleep at night knowing I am smart. Now we are smart.


We're just cutting out the middle man and reducing the complexity of the problem.
 
2009-10-29 12:37:29 PM
Jodeo: Well THAT's a relief!

The universe's 'big bang' was caused by a singularity that either
a) Has always existed and/or
b) Caused itself to exist

...and then proceeded without any outside influence (e.g. beyond the known universe/ylm) to expand -- an effect without a cause.

Wow. Now I can sleep at night knowing I am smart. Now we are smart.


This is part of why I'm an agnostic. It's a childish argument to just keep repeating "ok, then where did THAT come from?" However its also a good argument. At some point either something existed without ever having been created, or existed because it was created.

Creationists say this proves there must be a God at some point in the process...but creationists forget to apply their own reasoning. If everything has to come from somewhere, thus proving God created the starting point for everything, regardless of where you decide that starting point should be...

Then who/what created God?


And bam!...agnostic.
 
2009-10-29 03:22:58 PM
It's a childish argument to just keep repeating "ok, then where did THAT come from?" However its also a good argument.

www.mandypatinkin.net

Always wanted to do that.
 
2009-10-29 04:57:35 PM
Emposter:
Then who/what created God?

And bam!...agnostic.



That line of reason excludes the possibility that there IS something that exists in an eternal state.

I cannot prove with empirical science that there is something greater/above/beyond the observable universe. No one can with the scientific method. At best, a prima facie case can be made for any first cause using science, but that's about it. Creationists use arguments such as intelligent design and the strong anthropic principle.

Quite frankly, those are more meaningful than the pseudo-scientific arguments of "well, it just happened" or - even worse, "it didn't exist until it existed, therefore causing itself to exist without any intent to do so... "

At face value the "God did it" premise sounds childish, granted. But when put to the test, there's plenty to support a first cause, uncaused itself.

If there is a God, nothing else matters more.
If there is no God, then nothing matters at all.
 
2009-10-29 05:16:42 PM
Jodeo: Emposter:
Then who/what created God?

And bam!...agnostic.


That line of reason excludes the possibility that there IS something that exists in an eternal state.

I cannot prove with empirical science that there is something greater/above/beyond the observable universe. No one can with the scientific method. At best, a prima facie case can be made for any first cause using science, but that's about it. Creationists use arguments such as intelligent design and the strong anthropic principle.

Quite frankly, those are more meaningful than the pseudo-scientific arguments of "well, it just happened" or - even worse, "it didn't exist until it existed, therefore causing itself to exist without any intent to do so... "

At face value the "God did it" premise sounds childish, granted. But when put to the test, there's plenty to support a first cause, uncaused itself.

If there is a God, nothing else matters more.
If there is no God, then nothing matters at all.


Asking for proof either way is ridiculous. But your defeatist statement at the end is very sad.

If there is no God, the default isn't nihilism. And if there is one or many, the default is not worship without question.

Anyways, here's a funny from today.

i457.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-30 03:20:09 AM
meat0918: Anyways, here's a funny from today.

God bless Non Sequitur.
 
2009-10-30 07:51:37 AM
Jodeo: Emposter:
Then who/what created God?

And bam!...agnostic.


That line of reason excludes the possibility that there IS something that exists in an eternal state.

I cannot prove with empirical science that there is something greater/above/beyond the observable universe. No one can with the scientific method. At best, a prima facie case can be made for any first cause using science, but that's about it. Creationists use arguments such as intelligent design and the strong anthropic principle.

Quite frankly, those are more meaningful than the pseudo-scientific arguments of "well, it just happened" or - even worse, "it didn't exist until it existed, therefore causing itself to exist without any intent to do so... "

At face value the "God did it" premise sounds childish, granted. But when put to the test, there's plenty to support a first cause, uncaused itself.

If there is a God, nothing else matters more.
If there is no God, then nothing matters at all.


There is no more reason to believe that God simply always existed then to believe that some certain amount of matter or energy simply always existed. The point is that the "then where did it come from => there must be a God" argument is invalid.
 
2009-10-30 12:23:15 PM
The amount of time atheists spend trying to prove that there is no God is only slightly less than the amount of time that others spend trying to prove that there is a God. Atheism is not the absence of faith in God but its replacement with faith in no-God.

Science doesn't attempt to make the argument, leaving the unknowable to be unknown and turning its attention to things that can be reasonably inferred or deduced from the observable evidence. Often, those reasonable conclusions disagree with religious doctrine which leads to the un-reasonable conclusion that scientists oppose religion. Sometimes scientists are wrong, and some scientists fake stuff out of stupidity or hubris or just plain nastiness. This leads to the (also) un-reasonable conclusion that all science is wrong.

Atheists think science > religion.
Religionists think doctrine > science.

They're both wrong. The first because science avoids the conclusion. The second because the arguments used are invalid.
 
2009-10-30 03:42:51 PM
VonAether: EL_FABREZ: What was that one guys name that was explaining expansion? Aaron Raw/Rah/Roz? I wanna watch that video.

I'll make it easy for you. I'm only linking AronRa's videos, and not the videos he was responding to from QQOQQ, to save your brain from caving in. He "quotes" the relevant parts, regardless.

Where did EVERYTHING come from?
Having to repeat myself
No sense pretending

Of course, QQOQQ claimed victory at the end of the exchange.


Man I've been out of the loop on these videos. Guess I should take a gander.

tillerman35: Atheism is not the absence of faith in God but its replacement with faith in no-God.

So how's that faith in no-fairies working out?
 
2009-10-30 04:09:43 PM
why do people like this guy and Dawkins have to explain why retarded people are retarded? The montage was pretty funny the rest was boring/obvious.
 
2009-10-30 04:11:31 PM
Nikoras: why do people like this guy and Dawkins have to explain why retarded people are retarded? The montage was pretty funny the rest was boring/obvious.

It's just a bit of fun. There is so much stupidity out there, they have a little event to vote on who said the stupidest thing that year.

Everyone needs a little shaming once in a while.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »