What is the point or purpose of the "Crocoduck argument" used by various Young Earth Creationists?

What is the point or purpose of the "Crocoduck argument" used by various Young Earth Creationists?

The point of the "Croco-duck Argument" is not to argue that there should have been an actual "Croco-duck" species in existence, but it is a joke to point out the fact that there is no real intermediate fossils within the fossil record. In other words, if Evolution was true, then there should be massive amounts of fossil evidence of intermediate fossils everywhere. We should be able to see half elephant half something else, and half giraffe half something else, ECT. As of right now, all secular scientists can do is point to general connections between the animals kinds. However, there is no in-between stage fossils showing us the actual slow gradual processes that secular scientists would like to believe happened. It is still all a theory or faith based system without any real evidence.

Sure, I can use my imagination and stitch some bones together from different species and paint a bunch of pretty drawings about it, but it would not make the Theory of Evolution true, though.

...

Statistically, half of any large population posses lower than median intelligence, however it can be measured. Statistically, half of any population have lower than median education, however you measure it.

If these medians coincide with the classic means of bell curves, or close to them. there are very large sub-populations with somewhat less than median intelligence and education. However they are usually employed and have an income. If you are a young Earth creationist with aspirations to become a leader and not just incidentally get a high income from it, you can attempt to convince some fraction of these sub-populations that young Earth creationism is real and deserves support.

This gives you a large support base of potential donors. Therefore you aim your arguments at them. The crocoduck argument is aimed at the "lower" end of this sub-population. There are superficially better arguments, like abuse of the second law of thermodynamics for those who are closer to the medians or just above. You are perfectly aware that you will never convince many of the sub-population with the highest levels of education and intelligence and in any case they are relatively scarce.

Ken Ham realised this in 1984 when he moved from Australia (population then about 17 - 18 million) to the USA where the population was about10 times greater. It's possible the creationist grass was a lot greener as well owing to the activities of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) over the previous 33 years.

The problem for young Earth creationism is that standards of education are increasing overall. That increase in standards which began in the USA as a reaction to the Soviet Union's Sputnik I flight in 1957 led to more emphasis on science including biology in US high schools. So in 1961 Henry Morris founded the ICR to counter this greater emphasis. Any teaching of undistorted biology was and is counter to the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.

It was soon realised that there was also money to be made.

I haven't heard of a crocoduck, but creationism is a crock of something else.

They claim that evolution states a crockoduck should be extant, or at least a fossil. No crockoduck (as they claim evolution claims), would mean evolution is false.

I don't have to explain the errors of their claims and logic, do I?

Providing cheap laughs for everyone else?

I guess it is to show how silly evolution is.

Very easy!

It shows the lack of transitional species. Not just between two incompatible species, but rather it uses humor to show the lack of ANY transitional species. Something very necessary from a "molecules to man" "evolution" as many like to believe (falsely)

To make me laugh.