Replies

The fact that you do not even use my name speaks volumes as to your character.

>>Even Carl Sagan admitted that there is absolutely no evidence of the Oort cloud ("Comets", 1985). <<

Uh, that was in 1985. That's downright silly to cite a 20-year old source to say that no evidence for something has been found. The first Oort object was found in 2003. However, much evidence had been collected previously.

>>Earlier studies ignored collisions between comet nuclei and overly estimated this alleged "cloud" to be about 40 earths, but when collisions are factored in, amount to about one - no where near enough to explain the comets.<<

Funny how you cite measurements for something which you claim doesn't exist.

>>Evolution is based on the assumption that processes remain the same over billions of years. <<

You've mistaken a laymen's connotation for scientific theory. Evolution does measure the rate of mutation, which is relatively constant. Nothing ever claimed that the rate of propagation of a mutation was constant. Darwin himself cited lizards and turtles he expected had been unchanged for unimaginable lengths of time, and compared it to the amazingly fast evolution of finches.

>>What is especially comical is that the liar suggests that cold-blooded reptiles need feathers for insulation like warm blooded critters do.<<

Uh, the point is that these reptiles had just evolved warm-bloodedness.

>>Mud deposits form from sediments, rapidly burying live critters. As the flood recedes and the land dries the compacted mud hardens into rock?<<

The rock which is made out of hardened mud is shale. It is actually a good source of fossils, but fossils also occur in many other typoes of rock, including metamorphic rock. No known natural process can create metamorphic rock quickly. And even shale is often found in places where mud would not accumulate, even if there had been a flood reaching the top of Mt. Everest.

>>According to evolutionists, a critter dies and never rots or even enters into the food chain! It just hangs out for millions of years waiting to be convered with dirt several thousand feet thick. (Of course no mechanism for how this dirt gets there... pointless details, I know)<<

Fossils, of course, are created by what doesn't rot and what isn't edible. How does the dirt get there? Well, that's why animals which live in or near rivers and shorelines get their fossils found most often: Fossilization does rely on silt deposition. Frankly, there is a relative lack of fossils from organisms which live in dry lands.

As for my "delusions and fantasies" about the discovery of feathered dinosaurs, I can only say this:

Sorry, I hadn't realized you've been living in a cave. The discovery of intermediate species between birds and reptiles caused quite a stir a few years ago.

Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are two genera, discovered in 1998, which possessed feathers. Caudipteryx has forearms which are two short for flight, and lacks the developed sterna apon which flight muscles are attached. In short, it could not fly. (It's doubtful that Protoarchaeopteryx could fly, either.) There is a plain progression of the development of the feather (Yes! Intermediate Species!) from Sinosauropteryx to Caudipteryx and protoarcheaopteryx to archaeopteryx.

While these organisms were not likely the direct ancestors of modern birds, but rather survived until after the origin of true birds, they plainly show that various species of what must be considered reptiles were evolving along lines which led to modern birds. The following link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) discusses the reptilian qualities of the archaeopteryx, and includes a link to a discussion on the discovery of protoarchaeopteryx.

And the liar keeps on posting more of the same:

Uh, that was in 1985. That's downright silly to cite a 20-year old source to say that no evidence for something has been found. The first Oort object was found in 2003. However, much evidence had been collected previously.

This is an admission that materialists can't keep the story straight. When the Oort cloud was first imagined, it was a panic defense move to counter Young Earth apologists who pointed out that the existance of comets defies the evolutionary theory in both primoridal origins and the 4.3 billion years. Comets can't live even a tiny fraction that long. So Jan Oort totally made up the idea that there was a cosmic deep freeze. Like all materialists, Oort made sure that this imagined comet storage locker was too far away to be observed or measured so that the fiction can be maintained in the traditional evolutionists manner - the Joseph Goebbels technique. The problem is, that when other scientists began to track the courses of short period comets, they found that the Oort cloud fantasy didn't work so well and thus they ran to the Kuiper Belt (an equally unobservable fiction) and made all kinds of unsubstantiated statements and claims all in the name of [pseudo]"science".

Now the liar says "the first Oort object was found in 2003". All comets were supposed to be Oort objects, so one allegedly didn't have to wait until 2003 to observe one. But if one did have to wait until 2003, then what were all of those objects (aka 'comets') if not Oort objects? This isn't science, this is lunacy.

The liar then tried to defend why feathers are somehow a beneficial mutation on a cold blooded creature by slinging a pointless insult. No explanation of the much bigger question in how a cold blooded creature becomes a warm blooded creature, but that the cold blooded creature with feathers "out survived".

The liar, who chastened me for using "outdated" (aka proven wrong) evolutionist derived material then shows hypocrisy by using outdated, proven wrong evolutionist derived material in order to maintain the lie...

Caudipteryx are two genera, discovered in 1998, which possessed feathers...

Except evolutionary ornithologists Larry Martin and Allan Feduccia consider them flightless birds similar to ostriches based on the evidence that these so-called "feathers" are nothing more than frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin while a UConn feather expert that these critters lacked the organization found in feathers. I guess "science" can't make up its mind. (also these two northern china fossils are dated to be twenty million years younger than Archaeopteryx - a true bird. How can the alleged transitional be that much younger - only the evolutionist can know)

Your choice, believe the infallible Scripures or continue to follow the daily lies of the materialists?