This is a false dichotomy and is not how science works.
Your premise is : Either birds-from-dinosaurs is fact OR the ToE is not fact. Your false dichotomy is rejected as there is a third option, birds-to-dinosaurs could be missing important evidence which falsifies the hypothesis while the ToE remains a considerably accurate description of how nature works and can be reasonably considered a fact.
You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if it is birds-from-dinosaurs or snakes-from-lizards or humans-from-apes, there are no factual cases of this type of transition. Yet, this type of transition is considered a “fact” by the ToE. In other words, we have unconfirmed hypothesis and no facts. Where are the facts to support the “fact” of the ToE?
You know, I can’t believe I missed this earlier. No I didn’t miss your point, your point is bullshit based on bullshit.
What I missed is that you think humans evolved from apes.
No, humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans and Apes both evolved from a common ancestor that had both human and ape like features. Let’s call this ancestor, ancestor A.
So, two groups of ancestor A separated. Group 1 of ancestor A went off into the fields while Group 2 of ancestor A stayed in the forrest/jungle and they stayed separated from each other. Over millions of years, Group 1 of ancestor A evolved into humans while Group 2 of ancestor A evolved into apes.
The same is true of all your other examples:
Lizards didn’t evolve into snakes, a common ancestor had both snake and lizard features. Two groups separated, one group evolved into snakes, another evolved into lizards.
This is what the Theory of Evolution says. Not how you present it as if apes evolved into humans or lizards evolved into snakes.
Earlier you talked about a line in reality. That is the problem, humans have a natural tendency to classify things. It is one of the biggest reasons that taxonomy (and probably zoology) exists, humans want to classify things. A problem occurs once you take in all the available evidence, those lines start to disappear. Sure there are differences today between all of the different “species” but if you start looking into past history of these species you start to see that the past for different species intersect.
Why does the past for different species intersect? If they are in fact different, and species can’t evolve into different species, then the pasts should not interest. There should be no similarities. But there are similarities, and the past history of all species intersect with each other.
EDIT: You see, this is what I mean BibleStudent. We try to explain why or how you misunderstood science, but you dismiss our explaination with another misunderstanding.
I expect you'll dismiss this explaination of your misunderstanding with another misunderstanding.