This is another unproven assertion. You might believe it religiously, but you don't know that they're biologically related.
Sure we do. Every living thing on the planet has DNA. That's the first primary form or relationship. From there we can discuss other relationships. But that's undeniable, so your claim is rebutted.
I've said this before, and I'll probably have to say it again before it sinks in with you -- creationists aren't obliged to explain relationships that aren't there. We're not trying to explain your theory -- we're trying to explain our own. You don't seem to understand that.
Sure they are, since the relationships are there, structurally, ecologically and most important genetically. The genetic relationship between closely related species is right there for you to examine. But by all means deny it, and keep deny it. It shows how creationism lacks all credibility.
I'm well aware that not all birds fly, but the vast majority of them (especially waterfowl) do.
But some don't. Hence your "explanation" of why birds and amphibeans aren't found associated in the fossil record is rebutted. There are plenty of flightless bird fossils. Now, focus and tell us how those birds "flew away from the flood"
Sure you do. Fossils don't come with a date stamped on them.
Better than that, they can be isochronically dated, which is more accurate than a date stamp. But then I don't think you quite understand isochronic dating and expect you don't want to. But if you do, go to talkorigins and check out their section there.
The facts just show a bunch of dead things buried in the rock. The flood explains perfectly how they got there -- it's exactly what we'd expect to see if such a thing really happened.
Nope, the fact is we have a bunch dead thinks buried in rock in particular chronological pattern that is inconsistent with a universal flood. NEXT!
