The Crocoduck Argument
Created on: May 13th, 2007
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.24) | 392 | 12 | 151 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 24,941 |
Inbound links:
AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCE
AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCE
AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCETUS NATANS | AMBULOCE
Watch the video -- it's actually the atheist guy saying that. Which is really unprofessional and uncalled for, IMO. Maybe if people on both sides weren't such pricks we'd actually make some progress on this debate. I don't know what he's whining about, either; if atheists get to have the Flying Spaghetti Monster, let Kirk Cameron have the Crocoduck. They're both intentionally comedic arguments and so they all need to lighten up a little.
His claim that "There are no ______ in the fossil record" is as impossible to prove as the claim that God does not exist, as it is, effectively, claiming the negation of an infinite. There's no way he can check every fossil that has been recorded, nor is there any definite way to determine which species are 'in between'. In fact, every species is an 'in between' species if evolution is correct, because they all have the possibility of evolving. Thus, humans are an in-between species. QED.
At least evolution on the microscale has been recorded without a doubt; "Nylonase" a lysis protein which breaks down Nylon and is produced by a new form of bacteria which could not have existed 60 years ago, since Nylon did not exist earlier than 60 years ago. Another example would be the bacterium that can break down Trinitrotoluene (TNT), which was invented approx. 150 years ago.
Blah blah blah, yes I get it, all I'm saying is the atheist guy is being a buttface. Even if he's right, it doesn't give him free rein to skip the courtesies of civilized debate and go straight to childish name-calling. Why, you ask? Because anyone else can do the same thing, and in fact they have done so throughout history. "I'm right, you're wrong, so I won't waste my time with you." That's basically the cause of all our problems.
.................................................also, crocs.
Much safer to take the atheist approach. Agnosticism is the biggest bullsh*t ever. It says that it is impossible to determine whether or not there is a god. If there were a god, why would it be impossible to determine that he existed? Certainly it would be in his power to indicate that he existed. If not, then you've precluded a power that you probably have no reason to preclude. Atheism means a lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is atheism + a stupid claim.
"Certainly it would be in his power to indicate that he existed." Possibly. Or perhaps it chooses not too...or the understanding of its existence is beyond the scope of human reason, at this stage in our development. Also, a question of semantics comes into play here. If atheism means a lack of a belief in gods, is this rejection limited to beings that interact with human events? Does atheism only disprove deities, meaning beings worshipped or somehow venerated by humans?
Is it the idea of religion that atheists are rejecting? Because I can surely go along with that. But once you get rid of religion and all the negative (and positive) aspects of it, can you still be left with a more evolved being, force, consciousness, etc? Because surely it's existence is not causal to human belief. A being can exist without any human having knowledge of its existence.
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Period. It doesn't specify that no gods can exist, only that there is no belief that they do in fact exist. "Or perhaps it chooses not to"... Agnosticism is the claim that it is impossible to know whether or not gods exist. If he chooses not to but could chose otherwise, then agnosticism is wrong. "Does atheism only disprove deities?" Atheism isn't a proof, just a lack of belief. Deities are certainly possible. Theistic beliefs don't revolve around...
the possibility of deities existing and what one should do in order to given that each type exists. They make a claim that they actually DO exist, and that you should worship them because they actually do exist. Since many of the religions are mutually exclusive, you can see what a silly claim most of them make. "A being can exist without any human having knowledge of its existence." But actually believing that it DOES exist without any human knowledge of its existence would be a leap of faith, and silly.
"Even if he's right, it doesn't give him free rein to skip the courtesies of civilized debate and go straight to childish name-calling." I was really responding to DuskTiger. I'm just going to point out that yes, I agree with you. If they're going to pass this farce off as a real debate (of which I've seen high school debates done with more professionalism) then courtesy is a must. However, for our 'debate' both sides were given the bottom of the barrel. All the Theists got were some Christians. All
the Atheists were given were some ragtag group that didn't even seem to include a single academic. One of the seats was taken up by some eye candy and the other by some guy they picked off the street. Next time, give us two atheist biology professors. That fellow from Oxford in "The Atheism Tapes" and one of the academics from AtheistNation.com. As for the woman, if you're more interested at staring at her cleavage than getting real professionals to debate then do yourself a favor. Open a new tab in
your browser, find your favorite porn images or videos, masturbate for an hour, then come back with the ability to focus on the discussion, if that's not possible still, then just don't come back. Anyway, for the Theist side, "Christians" aren't going to cut it anymore. I demand all three of Abraham's Religions, Hinduism, and Buddhism AT LEAST. This isn't 'Evolution vs. Christianity'. This is 'Theism vs. Atheism'. Learn the difference or go sit at the kid's table and let the adults discuss in peace.
I think the atheist didn't say anything wrong, I mean anybody with that poor of an understanding of evolution, yet tries to argue against it's existance, deserves to be called a numbnut. That aside, I'm not sure if this guy said he was an atheist or not, but you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, you just have to have a basic biology class and some common sense.
What a lot of those creationists seem to think is that evolution is a sudden change when it is, in fact, a series of gradual mutations over millions of years caused by minuscule genetic changes that, by coincidence, benefit the creatures in some way that makes them more likely to reproduce through survival. lol.
Thus Speciation occurs over vast amounts of time and the fossil record isn't just a giant external hard drive you can pull whatever you want out of. Finding fully preserved identifiable authentic fossils isn't a matter of snapping your f*cking fingers. If people are going to take a sh*t on the hard work of an assortment of hundreds of archaeologists, paleontologists etc. I humbly submit that we make them dig the goddamn things up themselves.
Also the fact that basically speaking evolution is simply: A change in gene ratio. You have a flock of 10 white, 10 black sheep. After a while you have 13 white, 24 black. Wow, that's evolution. Can't argue against it. Now it gets cold. You have more wholly sheep than not. Wow, evolution! Get a petri dish and see it for yourself in just a few minutes! Science FTW
I cant believe they brought out such antiquated stupid arguments.
Anyway, I was watching discovery channel, and even the people on there have doubts about evolution sometimes, like the dna comparison of Primate, neandrathol, and humans. There is no link between them. So that is why we are aliens, and we destroyed the last human society that lived on this earth. The ONLY real sense. LAWL.
actually, most biological anthropologists think there may have been an aquatic ape from which we're derived. thus the reason our nostrils point down unlike most primates who have forward facing nostrils. and the mutation of webbed hands/feet have a greater % chance of happening w/ humans than any other non-aquatic animal.
Now I am not on either side here, but just making an observation here. Don't you find it kind of ironic that the athiests are so sure that there is no god as much as the religious people believe that there is? You can't "prove" any side. I'll admit though the creationist guy is a jackass who has not read up on evolution and goes based on literally 6th grade education level of evolution and lacks pretty much all understanding of it. However the athiest guy shouldnt have said numb nut, they're children...
Bertrand Russell said "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
"If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Richard Dawkins expanded on this with "The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot."
"Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first."
And nobody has said it better since.
ATHEISM IS NOT THE CLAIM THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. ATHEISM IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN DEITIES. You will notice this by looking at the word A-theism. If I ask you, "Do you believe that I have a quarter in my hand?" and you respond, "I don't know" then you would be correct. If you responded "No" then you could be wrong, and you'd be stupid for insinuating that you did know by refraining from stating the true state of the world: your ignorance. Either yes or no are incorrect answers in this case, as in religion.
I read it originally like this; (Atheism // A_Theos : Without _God. || Apathy // A_Pathos : Without_Emotion) in my personal interpretation of that, I go with Korf41 on this however our definition is by no means absolute. Atheism to me is simply lack of belief just as Apathy is lack of feeling or emotion. Some Atheists will outright deny that existence. However, those Atheists that popularize and publicize these views in order to sway others are no better than the religious organizations they detest.
"Stoicism... [contains] an ascetic system, teaching perfect indifference (apathea) to everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant." That's where apathy comes from. For the Stoics, pathos = passion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_Passions ... Certainly not the modern conception, but we use a distorted conception of their terms nowadays...
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link