Huh? We have no idea how long it took the dinosaurs to become extinct (it was "brief" only by geologic standards), Archaeopteryx dates from the LATE JURASSIC, and many, possibly most, dinosaurs had feathers.
The Yucatan event did not go around selectively killing off dinosaurs. It killed off large terrestrial animals. Small dinosaurs, otherwise known as birds, survived.
--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> But consider this:
> 1. Birds have been proven to have been descended
> from dinosaurs.
> 2. Dinosaurs have been proven to have been
> exterminated in a
> catastrophic set of events.
> 3. Birds are totally absent from the fossil record
> (ie., according to
> the
> > evidence they did not exist) before the demise of
> the dinosaurs.
> consequently
> 4. Birds evolved from dinosaurs during the very
> short period during
> which the dinosaurs became extinct.
> You can be sure that, asked how the birds evolved so
> rapidly from their
> dinosaurian ancestors, the neoDarwinian "modern
> evolutionary
> synthesis" will be able to offer no evidence-based
> explanation
> whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > ..." (and surely belief in a Big Banger is at
> least as
> > reasonable a belief as belief in the Big Bang),"
> >
> > Not even close. Not even within the same
> intellectual Universe. The
> > belief in a Big Bang jibes with observed physics
> down to many decimal
> > places...
>
> The "Big Bang" theory has already refuted itself by
> its need for
> the invention of nonsensical unobservable entities
> like "dark matter"
> and
> "dark energy" as placeholders to avoid acknowledging
> experimental
> observations that, without them, would totally
> contradict its
> expectations
> and so totally invalidate it. The "many decimal
> places" produced by
> the postulation of values for such imaginary
> entities is thus factitious
> in the extreme.
>
> In fact, the "Big Bang" theory, like the rest of
> orthodox astronomical
> theory, rests on an already refuted dogma--that "red
> shift" indicates
> the distance of an astronomical object from the
> earth (see, for
> instance,
> "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp).
>
> And beyond that, the "Big Bang" postulates the
> origin of this universe--
> governed by natural laws that have remained
> absolutely unchanged
> (because by definition uniform throughout spacetime)
> since its very
> first moment (that is how they retropredict the
> "inflationary" first
> moments
> of the universe)--in a "singularity." But just ask
> the question: "HOW
> did the supposed singularity, in which no natural
> laws applied, give
> birth to a universe governed by the precise (to
> "many decimal places")
> laws supposed to govern it today?" I defy anyone to
> come up with an
> answer that makes more
> sense than the Big Banger theory.
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping