"you say your machine proves feathers and my sources wisps/collogen?"

The synchrotron (which is not 'my' machine - I've never seen one) is used for studying the microstructure of feathers (amongst other things) and reading the chemical signatures in them. It doesn't 'prove' feathers at all. As for the collagen theory, that was disproved years ago, so do keep up. I don't know what you mean by 'wisps'.

"i think i already said that even if some dinos had feathers it is no evidence of flight or evolving into birds"

So? Because you said it then it must be true? Well, feathers are a derived character that have only evolved once as far as we know. We have that pathway, we understand the way feathers form and we also knew before finding feathers on dinosaurs that birds were actually dinosaurs themselves. The adaptions that led to flight didn't occur in one morphological frenzy, but occurred stepwise over hundreds of millions of years.


"Is not cladistics comparison of similarities inferring a common ancestor ignoring the possibility of a common designer?"

Science doesn't ignore the possibility of a common designer, it's just zero evidence that stands up to any scrutiny has ever been discovered that supports the existence of a designer. Not a scrap. You can't count the Bible as it's the old testament represents the scrawlings of a load of (not particularly) imaginative desert tribesmen. It's not evidence, it's unsupported by any factual data at all and even the many writers over the years who have proposed dates for the creation of the earth by god can't agree, with estimates ranging between 20,000 - 3600 years ago. The reason for this is they are making the date up.

"sure you can put it more tech and accurate to evolutionary theory but hopefully i got the drift'

Pete, I'm going to let you into a little secret. I'm thick. Stupid. Dense. I struggle to form my words into coherent sentences and I have to wrestle my thoughts onto the page. I'm not joking, I am quite fucking ignorant. But here's the thing: I'm trying, to the best of my limited capabilities not to be, to better myself through learning about the world I live in, and palaeontology is my way of doing that, as it encompasses many aspects of science and asks some pretty big questions, which remain big despite the efforts of people such as yourself to corrupt the ideas they raise to fit your myopic dogma. So don't come all that "I can't understand because I'm not clever enough" crap any more. It's boring and I don't believe it.

"higher life form?-well i suppose if a man is of no more value than a monkey,a mouse or the muck we was supposed to have come from?"

OK, this is where I get a tad heated. The idea that man is a 'higher life form' is patently absurd, destructive, disrespectful, dangerous and inherently evil. Our 'dominion' over nature is based on our ability to destroy it, to kill that which we don't understand. In pogroms, the holocaust and in countless wars the enemy are portrayed as 'animals' or 'subhuman', giving those with power the right to inflict unimaginable suffering and death on millions. This whole concept, with it's arrogant, anthropocentric and utterly heartless central conceit of man being 'higher' than the rest of the natural world came to being because some nameless dirtwad wrote it down a few thousand years ago. The poison in this idea has caused, and continues to cause, has meant untold suffering across the world for both humans and the beings unfortunate enough to share the planet with us.

I can't articulate my contempt for that mean, nasty and evil verse. Is a man of more value than a monkey or a mouse? How do you judge value? Do you have the right to? You might say that right was god-given; I will say you have no right at all and should show some humility.