Your handful of fossils can hardly constitute a lineage of avain evolution. You have failed to explain as to what motivated the evolution of flight. You also have completely glossed over the causes and lineage of all the special organs needed for flight. You go directly from a air garbbing biped to a bird, just like that. With the only explanation being "That's how evolution works".
I am totally amazed at how readily you accept these explanations without question.
Flight is a very complex thing. It took humans thousands of years to figure out how to do it artificailly. Yet somehow through the miracle of totally random events and mutations (which all happen to miraculously all be good ones) flight just happens to pop up. And the critters, who for no particular reason sprout wings and feathers, know just exactly what to do with them.
Really? OK, I guess Scientific America says so and well EVERYBODY who is SOMEBODY knows that they are absolutely without an agenda, without bias, and never think of anything but science for science sake. No sir, money never crosses the mind of the outstanding folks at SA.
Vade, all science is open for debate. As much as we think we know now, the truth is we will know more tomorrow and more next year and next century. Even after a thousand years willstill be learning. I personally think that we are the verge of discovering amazing things in terms of sub atomic particles and they will play an important role in our further understanding of genetics and life. In short I think we are about to discover life is a whole lot more complicated than we ever imagined.
Sincere Regards,
Boiler Plate
And I am totally amazed at how you reject them without understanding them.
It's still your turn. Put up or shut up.
What is the threshold number of avian dinos and reptilian proto-birds before BP accepts evolution? How many are you aware of, now? Are you sure that there aren't already as many as you might demand? Is anyone supposed to believe that your problem is with some numerical preponderance of evidence?
I am totally amazed at how readily you accept these explanations without question.
I am totally amazed at how you reject all evidence for evolution without having a shred that anything except evolution has happened, or even a defensible theory of your own.
Vade, all science is open for debate.
How about your PV = nRT example? Is that negotiable if my religion says PV = n/T*pi? How about the phlogiston theory of combustion? How about Malcom Bowden's wonderful Geocentricity theories? You have to like that one, right? Literal Genesis and thus "real" science!
The fact is that science makes progress by discarding wrong ideas. It converges upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. Your movement bailed from the ride along about 1859 so you don't have anything very workable to offer.