I'd say for a 2000 year old book thats good Science.
I'd say that was obvious to the most dullardish bronze age writer.
On the other hand, what we DON'T see are things, kinds, changing into other things, kinds, do we? What am I missing?
We do see this. We look at the fossil record. How did you miss that?
because people don't want to believe in a God.
I want to beleive in a god. But the evidence stops me. It is not a question of wanting.
What do you disagree with about it?
I does not align with the evidence: the evidence suggest the world is 4.5 billion year old. Genesis does not align with that.
I think at this point you need to disprove that they do not.
Not the case. The evidence supports the notion that a dog will give birth to a dog: but give it enough time and it will evolve into something that you cannot call a dog.
Is a hyena a civet? Not anymore.