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The liar, who chastened me for using "outdated" (aka proven wrong) evolutionist derived material then shows hypocrisy by using outdated, proven wrong evolutionist derived material in order to maintain the lie...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?
What you did was not use "proven wrong" material (in reference to Sagan). You took a very old admission that something hadn't been found YET, and presented it as if it were evidence that STILL nothing had been found.
coldblooded survival.As for how a cold-blooded creature evolves into a warm-blooded creature, it's quite simple: Warm-bloodedness is simply the result of having a septum in the ventricle of the heart, preventing oxygenated (pulmonary) blood from mixing with deoxygenated (systemic) blood. There are various reptiles living today showing intermediate phases of a cardic septum, including crocodiles. Unfortunately, cardiac septums do not usuall fossilize, since they are neither of a durable material like bone, nor near the surface to leave an imprint). So palentologists have to infer warm-bloodedness by secondary adaptations, such as capillary distribution, which do occasionally imprint.
Warm-bloodedness is an evolutionary advantage in temperate climates, where considerable temperature swings occur. In very moist climates (where moisture modifies temperature swings) or tropical climates, warm-bloodedness is not an advantage. Hence, it should not be surprising that cold-blooded creatures thrive to this day in aquatic, swampy and tropical environments. Nor should it, therefore, be surprising that a cold-blooded organism should survive after a similar organism has evolved warm-bloodedness is a different climate.
feathers? Neither Martin or Fiduccia would consider their work as posing any troubles to evolutionary science, but rather they did demonstrate how they, evolutionary scientists, don't bury inconvenient evidence. But the article I linked to does respond, quite adequately, to the issues raised by Martin and Fiduccia. As for the feathers lacking modern feathers structures, what you have just cited is precisely the existence of intermediate forms which you claim do not exist. The feathers served the purpose of a non-flying dinosaur. Only when some branch of that family tree started to fly would the modern aerodynamic structure become advantageous.
>>Your choice, believe the infallible Scripures or continue to follow the daily lies of the materialists? <<
A false and destructive dichotomy if ever there was one.