Your subject is creationists, not dogs or macro-evolution. The latter are also-rans to demonstrate your bias and reiterate in your mind that the former are inferior to you.
I would have read what you have to say about dogs and macro-evolution. But, you are biased about creationists and other people and whatever you have to say about dogs, etc., is subject to that bias. In other words, you're unbelievable. Leave out the qualifiers. Talk about something you know; creationists isn't it.
If your definition of creationists is valid, prove you have interviewed every creationist and evaluated the results with scientific accuracy. LOL
Why do you think my question is valid; invalid.
How much do you have to change to give credibility to your scientific observations.
What's the difference between a creationist and every other human being.
If you use the definition of creationist opposed to human being, show that one differs from the other with your data collected during your interviews with all creationists on this planet.
Who's the creationist that peed in your cereal.
Wasting time to observe a strong and unchecked bias.
You are so common. This is so common.