The Crocoduck Argument
Created on: May 13th, 2007
The Crocoduck Argument

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(4.24) 396 12 151

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 2 10 0 17,530

Inbound links:

views url
356 http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/crocoduck
81 http://search.daum.net/
54 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-wrapup-yup-doomed/
26 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/28/texas-
12 http://www.google.com/search?q=crocoduck&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
crockaduck'd!
May 14th, 2007
(2)
i must give it to kirk he does speak very sanily (in comparison to many other bible freaks) about the subject...but hes just another screw loose now too.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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
(1)
AMBULOCETUS NATANS = Crocowhale
May 15th, 2007
(0)
Or a Ratwhale. But what this bloody actor was asking for was a "Transitional Form", his stupid photoshopped image aside, I have his answer.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
crockaduck'd
May 14th, 2007
(0)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YbaTur4A1OU
May 13th, 2007
(0)
laugh laugh laugh laugh, cough cough cough cough
May 13th, 2007
(7)
massive tool is the greatest keyword i have ever seen
May 13th, 2007
(2)
I'd buy car insurance from a crocoduck. Also, let's have an ignorant debate about a scientific theory when we're supposed to be attacking the content of a non-belief non-system. Awesome!
May 13th, 2007
(1)
AFLACRAWR
(0)
Exactly. Atheism is not the same thing as science. In fact, science in itself is a belief system. A proper atheist would refuse to acknowledge science as a diety. What audience is Kirk trying to target?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Midwestern Baby Boomers
May 14th, 2007
(3)
science is NOT a belief system, Kangaroo. Science attempts to find logical proof for things WITHOUT any preliminary beliefs.
December 16th, 2007
(0)
Sorry to bust your bubble, ytmndmaster, but *math* is about logical proofs. *Science* is about modelling empirical evidence.
May 13th, 2007
(-1)
May 13th, 2007
(9)
Was it just me or does that woman have a huge rack?
May 13th, 2007
(6)
Who's the tits? She's my favorite.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Oh god, I'm watching the youtube vid. Her voice is like supersonic lava nails aimed at my ear drums.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
Yeah, the atheist guy's argument was strong enough without needing eye candy sitting next to him. It's obvious that she wasn't there for her public speaking. IMO, her prescence made him look cheap and amateurish.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Yeah, she didn't have anything to say really. It's not the debate could ever be serious, both sides are horribly insulted by any statement made by the other.
May 14th, 2007
(-1)
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
May 14th, 2007
(0)
yeah I'd have gone with the mudskipper, but mostly because of ren and stimpy
May 13th, 2007
(0)
But this guy is half chimp half human. Has he never looked in the mirror?
May 13th, 2007
(2)
I was going to vote 4 until saw that "Boner" was one of the keywords. I still can't believe that there was once a regular character on a prime-time sitcom named Boner.
May 13th, 2007
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
What a dumb@$$. I think we should be searching for the illusive common sense, I heard that existed but all I can find is stupidity.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
what a dick, OMG There are gaps in 4.6 billion years of history?
May 13th, 2007
(1)
no, not gaps. A gap. the whole thing. that's what he's saying. no transitional fossil records. that's what he's saying. period. count it!
May 13th, 2007
(1)
This is the girl with the huge rack. http://www.myspace.com/kellym78
May 13th, 2007
(0)
Racks are cool.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
good call
May 13th, 2007
(0)
lul
May 13th, 2007
(0)
Better view of sed rack at 8:52 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oI9kI_xc_k
May 13th, 2007
(0)
Get him, Crocoduck! Get that massive tool!
May 13th, 2007
(0)
May 13th, 2007
(0)
I agree with the massive tool. WHERE ARE SAID CROCODUCKS?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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
May 13th, 2007
(0)
...this is becoming a fad. I know it. Anyways, nice XD
May 13th, 2007
(0)
u win, here's ur internet
May 13th, 2007
(0)
Whales use to be on land and had legs.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
5 for huge rack
(0)
wow, what a dumbass for not knowing about the crocoduck
May 13th, 2007
(0)
what a f*cking douchebag
May 13th, 2007
(-10)
[ comment (and 2 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-10)
How could you make fun of that? It's very convincing...
May 13th, 2007
(0)
f*cking random
May 13th, 2007
(0)
haha whata boner
May 13th, 2007
(0)
WHERE THE F*CK WAS THE SCIENTOLOGIST POINT OF VIEW!!!!!
May 13th, 2007
(4)
Crocoduck, you have 30 seconds...
May 13th, 2007
(8)
"Actually you forgot Polandosaurus."
May 17th, 2007
(0)
^ This comment wins. Also f*ck Kirk Cameron.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
the crocodile ate him for great justice
May 13th, 2007
(6)
"Evolution is wrong, but how can I prove it? These are men of SCIENCE! ...I better bring pictures."
May 13th, 2007
(0)
was he f*cking serious? thats even dumber than the banana being the athiest's worst nightmare because it fits so nicely into a hand
May 13th, 2007
(0)
gotta love ignorance! also crocaducks.
(0)
Those two closet-cases need to stick to their bananas. And who's the hottie red-head?
May 13th, 2007
(0)
an poignant work, alan thicke would give you a hi-5
May 13th, 2007
(0)
That sounds almost like the MGM Lion sound file.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
did i just see chapstick?
May 13th, 2007
(2)
I like how "huge gaps" coincides with the camera switching to the huge boobs.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
wait a second...that was photoshopped
May 13th, 2007
(0)
well what do we have hur
May 13th, 2007
(1)
LOL, what a moron. Just proves the lack of understanding of evolution that he has. Also, transitional species have been found, like the archeoptryx.
May 13th, 2007
(1)
lol, if you listen closely in the background, you can hear a guy saying "oh my god, what a numb nut"
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Yeah, but the guy seemed to be saying something along the lines of "This shopped creature doesn't exist, therefore evolution is a sham."
May 14th, 2007
(0)
His argument equates to "There is no 'in between' creatures in the fossil record, ergo there is no evolution from one creature to another." Three words for you Kirk; WRONG, AMBULOCETUS NATANS.
May 14th, 2007
(1)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
(0)
of course there is no crocoduck, ducks are not even in the same family thing as crocodiles. as far as i know.
May 14th, 2007
(-2)
9/10 athiests are douchebags. They refuse the existence of a god, but then think they themselves are gods.
May 14th, 2007
(2)
True, only a fool would deny the existence of a higher being with absolute certainty...that they have somehow gained an insight that billions of people have missed. Much safer to take the agnostic approach.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
"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?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 15th, 2007
(0)
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...
May 15th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 15th, 2007
(0)
"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
May 15th, 2007
(0)
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
May 15th, 2007
(0)
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.
June 17th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 13th, 2007
(0)
Based on the excerpts I've seen, that is one charade of a debate. ATHEISTS vs CHRISTIANS - DING!
May 13th, 2007
(2)
oh my god, what a num-nut.
May 13th, 2007
(-3)
this is stupid
May 14th, 2007
(1)
no you
May 13th, 2007
(-3)
Here's hoping it becomes a good fad
May 14th, 2007
(1)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(1)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(1)
Seconded
May 14th, 2007
(1)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(-1)
me demand crocoduck fad.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
meh..
May 14th, 2007
(1)
numbnut
May 14th, 2007
(0)
5'd for kirk cameron getting pwnt
May 14th, 2007
(0)
ROFL CROCKADUCK'D
May 14th, 2007
(0)
If a duck goes 'quack quack quack', what does the sound of a crocoduck make?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
I hope crockaduck becomes a fad, but what do i know, i just got called a f*ggot at mcDonalds
May 14th, 2007
(2)
All I saw were Tits
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Did you notice when the announce said huge gaps it was focusing on her breasts? All i could think about was i'd like to bury myself in that gap.
(1)
Those were some gen-u-ine hooters. Lolz, tits.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
that atheist guy reminds me of jim from office (US), especially when he says 'oh god, what a numbnut' he looks like him and sounds like him
May 14th, 2007
(0)
SATIRE PICTURE IS SATIRICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL
May 14th, 2007
(0)
lol evilooshun is a funny proposition
May 14th, 2007
(0)
evolution is so stupid. We were all put her by space aliens 300 years ago. duh.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
doo doo do doooooo
May 14th, 2007
(0)
lol, crocaduck
May 14th, 2007
(0)
He's right, fossil gaps > evolution
May 14th, 2007
(0)
i like the way he says "huge gaps" when the woman's huge breasts are on screen.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&mode=related&search= PEANUT BUTTER PROVES EVOLUTION WRONG!
May 15th, 2007
(0)
And don't forget kids, important things like near complete exposure to radiation due to lack of Ozone* and differences in atmospheric content has absolutely NOTHING to do with abiogenesis! (* The first living things were responsible for the creation of the O^3 Layer.)
(0)
Chewie began pumping his hips rhythmically, driving himself into Leia as far as he could go.
May 14th, 2007
(-2)
LOL, Angst Atheist
(-1)
The internet is NOT a big truck and, as such, no place for creationist zealots.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
oh my god, what a numb nut.
May 14th, 2007
(1)
F*ck you Kirk Cameron. The Bible is the biggest crock of sh*t ever. I f*cking hate all religion.
(1)
What an idiot. There are MUCH better ways to discredit evolution. I mean, has he ever looked in a science book before? Has he ever heard of a little guy called Archaeopteryx?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
4'd. you get a 5 when you add gallons and gallons of blood.
(-1)
It's there, you just have to press ABACABB to see it
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Stoopid! That's a mixcreature, not a transition.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
I have a pet crocoduck. F*ck Kirk Cameron.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
what a f*cking genius.
(0)
someone please make Kirk Cameron show off the other evolutionary conundrum, the Razor Gator
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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...
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
"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."
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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."
May 14th, 2007
(0)
"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.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 15th, 2007
(0)
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.
May 15th, 2007
(0)
"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...
May 14th, 2007
(-1)
oh and you get a 4 because either way, that is such a stupid arguement it made me lol a little.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
if only
May 14th, 2007
(-1)
This YTMND proves that there is transitional form. This YTMND being an example, is a form between a 5star and a FAV.
May 14th, 2007
(-1)
That is the greatest thing ever...and YES he is a numbnut!!
May 14th, 2007
(0)
I like the fact that the tits said "I'd rather go to hell than go to heaven and worship a Megalo, maniacal tyrant". So she's comparing God to.... Hitler? Wow if she didn't have big knockers distracting my brain I would have disagreed...
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Oh and if you look further into his argument he's clearly joking.... he also busts out the bullfrog and the amazing sheepdog. Obviously mocking evolution, not in fact believing these do in fact exist.
May 14th, 2007
(0)
Smart person ^
(0)
(0)
Does somebody in the video say "Oh my God, what a numbnut?" when Cameron takes out the first photo?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
5 for killing Kirk Cameron.
(0)
The biggest problem with the creationism vs evolution debacle is that both sides are represented by giant enemy crabs. On one side, we have two massive tools. On the other, we have Mr Composure and Titty McAngsty. And, really, aren't boobs a miracle?
May 14th, 2007
(0)
the same man that tried to suggest that atheists cannot prove God doesn't exist SOMEWHERE on the analogy that someone cannot prove that there is no gold in China. Well Kirk, I can prove that there are no married bachlors or square circles in China... :sigh:
June 19th, 2007
(0)
"Oh my God, what a numb nut."
July 11th, 2007
(0)
You know, as I was watching this it occurred to me the platypus has a beak like a duck, it lays eggs and it's got these feet that kind of stick out the sides and.. ...HOLY CRAP. Crocoducks do exist!
October 26th, 2007
(0)
he might be cute if he werent so HOMO
December 10th, 2007
(0)
W00T!
December 14th, 2008
(0)
Crocoduck!! awyeah