- It's in the stub template & only appears in funspace. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Where does this come from?
Crocoducks don't exist. They are only the product of imagination. They are intelligently designed. Products of intelligent design don't need to exist, and they don't even need to follow the laws of nature. Or even mathematics. Or even logic. See the constructions of Lewis Carroll or M.C. Escher. Real things do need to follow the law of nature, and real things exist. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's the point. If a crocoduck did exist, it would disprove evolution, and prove intelligent design/creation. However, creationists hold it up as something we should find if evolution were true. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
They found the crocoduck!
At last, they have found a crocoduck! It looks virtually the same as what Ray Comfort wanted! What else does he want?
Move back to main?
- I agree. Hell, I certainly think this "Creationist" promoted nonsense deserves some respect in our mainspace. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 09:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree and done. It is a common enough subject among the creation/evolution "debate" (I can't even type creation/evolution "debate" without cringing...hence the ""). AceModerator 09:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that this article misses the point
Is there any sort of need for there to be a crocoduck? Who's saying that one evolved from the other? I think that should be clarified.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) -_- Evil fascistoh noez 02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Amended to 'close cousins' and ref added. OK? Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Why no love for the platypus?
Considering that a combined appearance is what their "understanding" of evolution leads them to expect to see, shouldn't the
aforementioned abomination noble platypus have fit their crocoduck niche? As infuriating as their intellectual dishonesty is, at least it's consistent. Jwebb (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no one most recent common ancestor for archosaurs; Archosaurus itself isn't even an archosaur. Wording should probably be revised to be less misleading. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)