[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).

[Shadowfax]

I don’t dispute any of the evidence. Only the popular interpretation of it. None of it invalidates the Genesis account. Only the popular “scientific” interpretation of that evidence. For the record, I absolutely disagree with a), b), and c). D) is somewhat suspicious, as there are no examples of feathers reptiles that I know of in existence today.

Care to address the issue of falsifiability? I’ve always been told that a valid scientific theory needs that. Please describe how the theory of evolution is falsifiable.

All the best with your theory. If you’re right, I’ve lost nothing. We’ll both end up in the same place - no where. If I’m right, you could be in serious trouble. Also, the logical conclusion that evolution would lead you to is that you are an accident whose life has no purpose or meaning. Enjoy!