Actually we CAN prove that men are apes. Why? Because that's what scientists arbitrarily decided to call them. Like cars are not called apples and apples are not called cars. We pick a label and use it. That's how languages work. So yes, humans ARE apes because that's what scientists call them. Even better, it was a creationist who pointed it out. A creationist helped lay down the scientific foundations for evolution. And we still use some of his work today.<quoted text>
What have you been proving, except that you are a [email protected] clown?
What is more logically sound to conclude after you observe two (2)different structures that have common parts:
A. That both structures were made under similar in similar processes
B. That both are from the same object..?
Finding a million commonalities and relationships between men and apes will never prove that men are apes or that men evolved from apes.
You can prove that men and apes were created under the same condition or created by the same processes; but you can never prove that men are apes as such, nor anything of the sort.
Also it's not simple similarities. There are similarities between eels and snakes. That doesn't mean they are that closely related. It's the SPECIFIC TYPE of similarities which evolution predicts and creationism does not. That's why the DNA of snakes is closer to that of reptiles than fish. So is its skeleton. In creationism the DNA of a snake could easily have been similar to the eel. Or it could had reptile DNA and a skeleton similar to the eel. Because Godmagic has no limits. Evolution does. And it makes scientific predictions based on that.
The best you can do is take the work of science and claim credibility after the fact.