Here's one creationists can't answer: The creationist believes that god created "Kinds" of animals and that humans and other apes are different Kinds

Well the Creationist would definitely say that lions and tigers are the same cat kind. They would say that rats and mice are the same kind and they damn sure would say that African and Asian elephants are the same elephant kind.....

But guess what all of those animals have in common?

By genetic analysis, they are ALL less closely related to the member of their own "kind" than Humans are to Chimpanzees.

So how does that work?
How are these animals which you consider to be of the same kind less closely related than Humans and Chimps which you consider to belong to different kinds?

Charity · 61-69

God told the Earth to bring forth plants, God told the waters to bring forth life abundantly, God told the Earth to bring forth Beast first then cattle. God seeded the Earth and the Earth brought forth those seeds. One can call it evolution if they choose to.

Funny how in the Bible the plants came first life in the waters came second beast came third cattle came forth, and in evolution they now know plants came first they are millions of years older than first thought, water life came second, dinosaurs came third and what we see today came forth. Coincides.

According to evolution everything came from certain marine life. Man evolved from a certain fish, which through the process of evolution turned into primate type animals and one of those primate type animals evolved into man, from the homo erectus to the Neanderthal to the homo sapien. All other animals came from certain fish.

One must understand how science determines the process of evolution and the relationship of animals to others through genetic traits, DNA, chromosomes, ect whether of the same "species" or not.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related#:~:text=Part%20of%20the%20Darwin%20exhibition.&text=Overwhelming%20evidence%20shows%20us%20that,outcome%20of%20a%20common%20ancestry

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/selfish-genes-what-makes-a-species-different-356612/#:~:text=Most%20evolutionary%20biologists%20distinguish%20one%20species%20from,suffer%20some%20other%20sort%20of%20reduced%20fitness.&text=But%2C%20when%20there%20are%20genetic%20incompatibilities%20between%20species%2C%20gene%20flow%20is%20reduced

Chimps are considered our cousins because they come from the same line as the homo sapien, to where is the gorilla orangutan and such didn't.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/comparison-human-and-chimpanzee-genomes-reveals-striking-similarities-and-differences

https://study.com/academy/lesson/evolutionary-relationships-definition-diagram-quiz.html#:~:text=Lesson%20Summary%20Show-,What%20is%20an%20Evolutionary%20Relationship%3F,that%20have%20a%20common%20ancestor.

God said LET THERE BE LIGHT and at the Big Bang Singularity there was a burst of light, which science calls cosmic radiation light, not viewable by the naked eye, but lit up the entire universe and remnants can still be seen today.

PathwayMachine · M

Well the Creationist would definitely say that lions and tigers are the same cat kind.

If you all were as intelligent and science minded as you try to appear to be these might be interesting discussions. If I want to know exactly how biology works I wouldn't make a b-line here. It doesn't matter what creationists say. They barely know the Bible let alone "evolution."

But guess what all of those animals have in common?

It doesn't matter what they have in common. They have eyes? A mouth? Bones? They look cool in a French maid outfit? Let science do science and God do creation. That leaves you and me out. Having silly uninformed battles of ideological fixation. We look silly.

The Biblical kind is defined simply as producing their own kind. If you say a man is an ape that's your thing. Man didn't evolve from an ape or the "common ancestor" your silly science imagines but can't identify - because it was never observed. Set aside all of your jargon and you have things changing. Different skin color, different beak sizes, but they don't change into dolphins or asparagus.

By genetic analysis, they are ALL less closely related to the member of their own "kind" than Humans are to Chimpanzees.

It doesn't matter. Can they have fertile offspring together? That's all that matters. Your evolution has NEVER been observed. Seeing a line of ape skulls doesn't constitute observing Macroevolution. Something changing into something it can't multiply with. It wouldn't work. Not a monkey and a man, not a bird and a lizard, not a donkey and a horse. It doesn't matter if they are "related."

Science: Dr. Devil Bill and the Rattlesnake King

https://pathwaymachine.com/appendix/devilbill.php

Pikachu

@PathwayMachine

But a creationist would say that a lion and a tiger are both cat "kind" while saying that humans and chimps are of different kinds even though we're more closely related.
Hate to break it to you but words have meaning and their definitions matter if they are to be used lol

Can they have fertile offspring together? That's all that matters.

So that's just the biological species concept and that's already pretty shaky. But also that's not what creationists use to group "kinds", at least not consistently.
A creationist would call an Asian and African elephant, "elephant kind" but they cannot successfully produce offspring, much less offspring which can then reproduce.
So...there's that gone.

Something changing into something it can't multiply with. It wouldn't work.

But that's how it does work and observably so. It's called reproductive isolation and that's part of how we identify new species.
A population becomes reproductively isolated from the parent population maybe by geography or behaviour.
They're very closely related but can no longer interbreed. As they continue to diverge perhaps due to living in different habitats or occupying different niches their differences grow until they are altogether different.

So then we come back to the question i asked you earlier: We observe that organisms can change over time with successive generations, that is a fact. What mechanism can you identify which would stop that change at x amount?
That is to say, if we know small changes happen over a little time, what prevents those small changes compounding into big changes over a lot of time?

Not a monkey and a man, not a bird and a lizard, not a donkey and a horse

And nor does the theory of evolution suggest that this should be possible lol.

Seeing a line of ape skulls doesn't constitute observing Macroevolution.

Not directly, no.
But for very complete fossil lineages like we have with humans or dinosaurs or horses, evolution is the theory which most consistently, predictively and parsimoniously accounts for the fossil record we observe.
There does not exist a better explanation for the evidence.
There does not exist a coherent argument for why evolution does not account for the evidence.

So what would you like to bring to the table to suggest that evolution is not the explanation for what we see in the fossil record?
Because "nuh uh" just doesn't cut it.