Talk:Crocoduck

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Unassessed

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clean Up Language Per Editor

Agree with editorial comments in second paragraph of "In Creationism" section. Language cleaned up to address comments on this sentence, followed by editorial comments: "Their composite picture of the imaginary "crocoduck" showed the head of a crocodile on a duck's body to show exactly what they thought evolutionists believe, but can't back up through the fossil record." ^{[clarification needed]}^[1] RichardCraft (talk)

REference removed

This reference doesn't seem to have any relevant information: videos that might have covered the segment have been withdrawn by YouTube –"Atheist Face-Off: National Television Asks, "Does God Exist?" - BSAlert.com 360 - The Fairest and Balancest, Most Trusted Name In News". I've therefore removed the reference. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Kirk's picture

It looks decidedly b3tan to me. Is there any sort of confirmation on that? --Kawachan (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously photoshopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.191.131 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Crocoduck Award

I think the Golden Crocoduck Awards, created by BBC Journalist Peter Hadfield AKA youtube users Potholer54 / Potholer54debunks also are worth mentioning. Any objections? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this is very much a web phaenomenon, so the best sources are the original ones, the nomination videos and the announcements of the winners are gathered at http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks

However, Potholer54 recently disclosed his real-life identity in a video entitled who I am. Here on the Guardian web site Peter Hadfield writes about his youtube personality, however he does not talk about the Golden Crocoduck, because he focuses on the other main topic of his channel, climate change, So I do not have a third-party report about the awards from a classical reputable source, but since this is not about creating a new article but about adding some info to the existing ones, the information might be sufficient. The author is, I would say, clearly a noteworthy person. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading this article reminded me of this award by potholer54. I agree that it is very relevent and noteworthy. Abhishikt (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basal Archosaur

The Anatosuchus and the Pelagornithids are good examples of convergency and analogous traits but should not we include more examples like Velociraptor that trully demonstrate evolutionary progress from last common ancestor towards the contemporary lineages? Maybe a basal archosaur close to the common ancestor of birds and crocodylians?--94.68.216.184 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossils" section

The section on fossils shows some crocodile-like animals with some features resembling those of ducks, but these are actually irrelevant to the concept being described. In fact, the scientific view is that there is no transitional form between a crocodile and a duck, as misunderstood by creationists, but rather there is some common ancestor with a long line of transitional forms descending to each current species. This should be made more clear in that section, or it should be deleted. 92.20.10.252 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Comfort, Ray (12 February 2009). You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. WND Books. p. 30. ISBN 1-935071-06-8.

[1] Comfort, Ray (12 February 2009). You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. WND Books. p. 30. ISBN 1-935071-06-8.

[1]