Looks rather twisty-shouty. You can never tell if fossil A is the direct ancestor of fossil B even if it is older and everything looks right. You might find a better contemporary candidate for direct ancestry later. That's just how it is.
It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does.
There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature.
A lot of scientists who accept evolution are in that statistic. Strawman.
You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point.
Why don't you try doing better? I am citing the preponderance of opinion in science. You are citing one Alan Feduccia, last I saw. Except Feduccia does think birds evolved from reptiles only it was archosaurs. He thinks so precisely because he can make a case for it based on some morphological similarities. His problem is that the same logic makes a far better case for theropods. Your problem is you don't accept any of this logic at all and have no real horse to put in the race except your unwillingness to understand.
For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.
Indeed there is not. Were you composing in a hurry? Let me try again: There is a huge preponderance of evidence and opinion in science that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You were asking why it isn't settled. It's basically settled. There are always a few tenacious borderline-crackpot types in science. Lots of people work in that area and we don't screen for sanity.
Then why are people posting fossil sequences and purporting to prove evolution? By your own admission it's uncertain and inexact.
It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does
I can come up with a lot of reasons. I would say that they're similiar creatures that lived about the same time. Or they're similiar creatures that lived at different times. Throw out your belief in transistional fossils and all that it implies and how would you prove me wrong? It should be easy, shouldn't it?
I meant what I said. The point was that virtually no scientist thinks that 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of anything but 2 parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. Opinion doesn't matter. It's hard, basic, provable testable science.
You were asking why it isn't settled. It's basically settled. There are always a few tenacious borderline-crackpot types in science. Lots of people work in that area and we don't screen for sanity.
Feduccia is a crackpot? He literally wrote the book on avian evolution. He's not alone. The disagreement among evolutionists are there because it's not like math and chemistry where the answers are obvious and testable.