Actually there is fossil evidence like proto avis 75 million years prior to arch, it's just that the fossils were poor.<quoted text>
No, the caution is obviously because there is no fossil evidence contemporary with the tracks of any creature that could have made that print. Therefore it is premature to claim whether it is a bird, or something with a foot structure similar to a modern bird's. Any scientist would be an idiot to claim that birds had to exist at that time on the basis of one set of birdlike footprints.
But don't let that stop you Maz. You go right ahead and jump to the conclusions you need.
Now, lets say that the footprints turn out to be the first in a pile of evidence that does push back the origins of bird evolution? So what? Ask yourself, how far back would falsify evolution? The birds would have to appear before any possible antecedents. That would be, based on skeletal anatomy, after the archosurs and some time during the period of the dinosaurs. Does your precious footprint falsify that? No, didn't think so. Just more of your empty flapping from the edges like a crotchety old muppet.
Evolutionists have built entire life stories off the back of a single bone or fragmented skull, as well as footprints, so don't try to pass your handwaves around in front of me. Remember Lucy. She has been given human feet on the back of FOOTPRINTS, and that is good enough for you. Funny how that seems to smack of hipocricy in light of your comment.
So don't let being a hipocrite stop you either!
What happens if bird ancestry changes to your theory? Nothing. I have said TOE is based on flavour of the month and not science and it is. The fact that 'anything goes' and your obvious knowledge of it, again supports that claim. Evos can make as may false predictions and claims as they wish and still the evolutionary juggernaught will continue and is virtually unfalsifiable for the same reason. You could have common ancestor in the precambrian and that would not falsify TOE. Thanks for bringing that up again.
Despite your constant struggling, one set of well defined and clear footprints dated to the time of Pangea is excellent evidence for my view as much as you hate it. We are fortunate to have found even these considering the process of fossilization is rare.
So indeed this is not about falsifying the unfalsifiable. I cannot falsify your mythical theropod. Neither can you falsify that they are modern bird footprints. All I can do is poke fun at you like you do at creos.
It is about demonstrating that despite the hollow background noise that evos make indeed there is support for a creationist paradigm. You can struggle and do cartwheels and demand a higher level of substantiation than evos have ever had for anything and be hipocrites and go around in circles for months. Sure you can!
What you can't do with validity is say these footprints and protoavis fossils are less an evidence for me than you lot with your Laetolli footprints, one lone metatarsel, and inventing a mythical theropod to wear uncomfortable data.
I am sorry that you hate it so much. But struggle as you may these modern bird footprints ARE good evidence for birds being dated to over half way back to the Devonian.