Added: An by the way, yes, there are some debates going on in the bird lineage department, even within the evolutionary field. I don't know the present situation, but for awhile it was a hotly debated topic. But nobody was debating the fact that birds evolved, only from where.
That is not something that people merely trying to pull wool over your eyes would bother doing, by the way. If they were nefarious pseudo-researchers, they would all be agreeing for the purpose of deceiving we innocents. But as actual researchers, the fact that they disagree on something, even this major, is indicative of serious research and serious differences, not deception.
I would hope that no reasonable person believes that debates are indicative of deceit or that they are being carried on for the purposes of fine tuning a conspiracy. I certainly don't. Personally, I would be more concerned if debates were not occuring. But, that's not the point. Once again, there is nowhere near enough evidence to make these claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are significant and substantial questions to be answered before such a claim can be made. Enormous obstacles that involve explaining such things as the evolution of the respiratory system and wings must be overcome before claiming that this is both theory and fact. Can't you see what is wrong with this? There are young children in schools around the world being taught this non-science as science and theory and fact. And to think there are grown people that actually embrace these stories as "science" is disturbing, to say the least.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.
Storrs Olson - Bird Curator- National Museum of Natural History
Both sides in the debate agree that birds evolved. That they disagree on their ancestry does not take away from the process enough to warrant ditching the whole thing and starting from scratch.
You need to take a broader look at the issue. Nit-picking does not suit you. If evolution is false, you should have literally millions of reasons to doubt it, not one or two or three. You should be able to pick up any two fossils claimed as related and diss the crap out of them with nothing more than a third grade education and a working knowledge of PowerPoint. The errors should be so obvious that neither the blind nor the dead would have any trouble with your explanations.
But you need to be able to explain other things besides specific evolutionary flaws. You need to be able to explain why scientists can look at a rock formation, determine its age, and then accurately tell you what kind of fossils will be in it. And more importantly, what kind of fossils will not be in it. And if you are getting rid of evolution carte blanche
, you need to be able to explain the different life forms in different geologic periods. If ID was involved, why was it slowly changing the speciation of living creatures. Why did the reptiles start out able only to eat soft plants, and why did new reptiles with new mouth parts and stronger jaws and other changes slowly take over as plants themselves also changed slowly over time? In other words, why does the timeline of the fossil record, which most definitely is repeatable and verifiable, look exactly like the species were slowly changing, and why does it look to scientists today that it was evolution that changed these critters, not some ID force coincidentally modifying plants and animals and a snails pace. Well, a pre-snails pace for awhile, since there weren't any at first.
And while it is big-hearted of you to allow for "micro-evolution", what part in would it play in ID, where some unknown but genius force is making hundreds of millions of species at some slow but traceable rate? And what stops "micro-evolution" from becoming macro-evolution? Why do little changes not insult your intelligence, while larger ones very much do?
And why would an ID force bother making so many different life forms, 99% + of which are now extinct? What sort of ID force can't get it right the first few hundred million times?
Why is it that evolutionary history, false as it is, match geologic history, chemical history, plate tectonics and weather history. Why is our very new ability to disassemble and study individual genes not exposing the fraud that is evolution? Why does the genetic makeup of every living thing appear to be consistent with evolution? Why do human and yeast share so many genes? Why are half of human and banana genes identical to each other? A fact that is absolutely consistent with evolution, and quite possibly confusing to ID ideals?
And while you are clearly brilliant and above reproach in the knowledge department (I know this despite your unwillingness to share specifics), why are others who ride the ID bandwagon so unknowledgeable about science in general. Why do some insist that evolution disobeys the second law of thermodynamics, because they insist that an external power source would be required for it to work? Why do some that support ID persist in using examples that have been refuted by science without ever bothering to address the specifics as explained by evolution supporters. The ID crowd often never addresses critical responses to their claims. Why? With an airtight case, nothing should be a problem to explain away.
And why do ID supporters dwell on one thing or another, for a grand total of about two things, and ignore everything else about evolution? If it is false, every single claim of evolution should be easy to diss. You guys should be pulling yet another false evolutionary claim out of a hat every single frickin' day and right off the tops of your heads accurately describe why it is wrong in three sentences or less. Your onslaught of factoids should overwhelm puny scientists and their wild-assed claims.
Some still say the earth is flat, or that it doesn't orbit the sun. It is very easy to prove them wrong. Some claim we haven't been to the moon. Again, easy to dismiss. Some say that the climate isn't changing, regardless of cause, some say that fracking could never pollute drinking water, some say that airplanes disperse nano particles in their exhaust to introduce tiny control robots into our bloodstream, or something like that. I know a woman who claims that the government is digging a system of huge tunnels under the entire country. Each of their claimants is absolutely crazy, or at least absolutely wrong.
How is ID different? What claims does your side make that elevates it above the conspiracy level? And once you succeed and rewrite science, what are you going to claim next? That you have found proof that some dinosaurs were incredibly rich, proving that income inequality is natural?
Your low bar isn't high enough to change anything yet. You need to inject some quality into your claims, or they will remain silly at every level. Which, frankly, should be embarrassing.