[Shadowfax]

I have hardly read a more controversial statement. I don’t believe there is anything in it that is true.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I’m not concerned with whether you believe it or not. My experience has been that people who don’t believe that statement aren’t particularly open to persuasion about it. But even so, you should be able to appreciate that the new discovery doesn’t contradict the theory in any meaningful way.

[whattajoke]

The idea that between 230 and 65 million years ago, the Earth was home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes, at least some of which had feathers, and which are the ancestors of today's birds, is hardly "contradicted" by the idea that they may have all had feathers.

I have hardly read a more controversial statement. I don’t believe there is anything in it that is true.

Hm. You are therefore stating that:

a) The Earth is did not exist 230 to 65 million years ago,
b) The Earth was not home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes,
c) those reptiles were not ancestors of today's birds, and
d) Some of them had feathers.

By definition, all creationists would stand by (c) and while almost unbelievable, there are still some creationists who have issue with (a), but I've not yet heard from anyone who would disagree with (b) and (d).

So congratulations on that. I am, as always, curious though as to why the Deity of your choosing decided to deceive us with such ample evidence across many fields of study supporting (a) and (b) and more than enough to support (c) and (d).