Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness

I think it's a forced (deliberate) inconsistency. If you ask a creationist, "Which is more closely related, a cat and a dog or a goldfish and a dandelion?" he'll probably answer instinctively, "a dog and a cat."If you point out that dogs and cats aren't supposed to be related at all....It's human nature to see patterns whether they're real or not. We see relatedness where there may not be any. Creationists have to work hard at unseeing it.

The key word there is "you". In science, "you" is plural. If one person views the evidence and sees relatedness there are forty others viewing the evidence who may or may not see relatedness. For confirmation bias to be a fatal problem, everybody would have to have exactly the same biases, which isn't likely.