What if scientists discovered a duck with a crocodile head? Kirk Cameron had a picture of one on the Bill O'Reily show. He claims that we should see this animal if evolution was real. What if we actually found one though? Ooo! Even better, what if we found an animal with a body like a beaver or an otter and a bill and webbed feet like a duck?
2007-05-10 04:10:52 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The existence of a platypus is actually a piece of evidence that can be used for creationist argument. Whenever a fossil is found that scientists claim to be a transitional creature(Tiktaalik, anyone?), we can just point at the platypus as an animal that is not considered a "missing link," but has characteristics from different types of creatures.
2007-05-10 04:46:14 · answer #1 · answered by TWWK 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
a million. uncertain why you're employing Kirk Cameron as an occasion right here, that seems style of random. there are a number of nicely knowledgeable human beings on the two sides of the argument. 2. the completed scientific community would not have self assurance in evolution. there are a number of nicely respected scientists who're creationists or something else. maximum all people is evolutionists given that's what's taught in each and all of the colleges, and because that's what curiously that all people else believes. combine that with the very incontrovertible fact that there is a incredible quantity of info which seems to assist it and that's not likely spectacular that a lot of scientists have self assurance in macro-evolution. by ability of how i'm a Christian and a creationist, yet i don't think that creationism and evolution are inherently incompatible so i'm enormously independent in this.
2016-10-15 06:58:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He doesn't even know what evolution is about. A duck giving birth to a duck-alligator would prove evolution wrong. But you bring up a good point. There are plenty of animals that show features of other animals. But when you are ignorant and stupid, you ignore that.
2007-05-10 04:54:41 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe he would automatically assume that evolution was true because there was an animal that wasn't like another animal? And that there are animals that are apparently extinct that have died. And since we found them, evolution was true because there aren't anymore?
2007-05-10 04:17:54 · answer #4 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A duck with a crocodile head????
Is that the best these intellectual lightweights can come up with? If so, then science is completely safe...
2007-05-10 04:14:27 · answer #5 · answered by crypto_the_unknown 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's hard for sane people to imagine what convinces insane people like Kirk Cameron of anything.
2007-05-10 04:13:50 · answer #6 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Or what about if we found a racoon with a ducks beak and flippers that lays eggs?
We could call it...
a platypus.
2007-05-10 04:14:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes the pictures are lame but are we gonna do the whole Kirk thing all day again?
2007-05-10 04:13:37 · answer #8 · answered by Reisnoh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he's making to much money off Christianity to be bothered with the truth.
2007-05-10 04:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by St. Tom Cruise 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What if wishes and dreams were dishes and creams?
2007-05-10 04:16:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋