tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post2728576495506124943..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Fred Clark on Croco-Ducks, Kirk Cameron, Creationism and SpinosaurusJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-24968022535246128732015-05-14T19:33:40.277-04:002015-05-14T19:33:40.277-04:00Any interest in Randy Guliuzza's work with ICR...Any interest in Randy Guliuzza's work with ICR? Compelling stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-25373931863832717062014-10-17T12:36:33.020-04:002014-10-17T12:36:33.020-04:00The argument that the scientists have found a &quo...The argument that the scientists have found a "crocoduck" so Cameron and Comfort should take back their claim that there are no transitional fossils strikes me as counterproductive and self-defeating. No scientist is claiming that the Spinosaurus was transitional between the duck and crocodile, and as far as I can tell no one is pointing to Spinosaurus as a transitional fossil between any two taxa. It just happens to look kind of like a crocodile and kind of like a duck. And at the same time it looks very little like either of them.<br /><br />Cameron and Comfort are a joke. They are wrong that there are no transitional fossils, and maybe they are even aware of this. They demand a crocoduck because that's what their sock-puppet version of evolutionary theory predicts. But the Spinosaurus doesn't satisfy that sock-puppet version of evolutionary theory, and it is not (currently) a good example of a transitional fossil by the standards of actual evolutionary theory. So all of this seems like little more than a pissing contest to me.AMWnoreply@blogger.com