Theists ask me a question

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Evolution has evidence of it happening we can look at our DNA animal DNA and look at both. 
Believe it or not everything on this planet, past future or even present is all related. All life on earth
shares a common ancestor of sorts we can look at tree and biologically speaking that is pretty much a very distant
cousin. Dogs and cats too are closely related ironically. I don't really need to prove it as there is so much evidence
for it you could pretty much go to google i'll even give you give you a video. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

I've seen that video and honestly its pretty convincing. However, it focuses only on the very clearest 'evidence' there is, as if more were not needed. I accept the fact that we do not and cannot know everything, such as the amount of change that can occur in one species due to natural selection and mutation, however the video claims to have found many fossils of a transition between dolphins and legged land animals. I am not convinced by this claim, as it is only a very small part of what would be required to prove the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is not evidence of evolution, but merely diversity of kinds?
Lets start from the beginning - can you prove that the big bang created everything we see today?

Maybe those who are the most esteemed scientists in the world among others who actually do science instead of try and prove anything (and you need to understand this, most of them haven't the time nor interest in proving anything to those who make unfalsifiable "Goddidit!!!" claims) are really a secret society of people who spend all their time out in the field dancing about while wearing rabbit masks. Their "science" consists of chanting out dark, unmelodic spells, and performing various other Satanic rituals in the buff (other than the masks), culminating in ritual sex which climaxes when they drink each other's blood. Then at the end of each day they defecate on the desert sands, and out of this is formed their daily report on new "species" discovered, which doesn't even once use that archaic word from the 19th Century, "kinds".

***sigh***

If you understood the difference between how science works, and precisely what the claim of an "unfalsifiable" doctrine means, then there would be no confusion as to who's word should carry weight in an educated society. Theistic doctrines offer 0 evidence - "evidence" does not equal rhetorical argument! Therefore I'll accept the accounts of the side which presents quite a bit in one video, and a whole lot more than you will ever see in just one! If education scares you, then I can't imagine why you are interested in dealing with questions on nature at all, unless your motivation happens to be equally dishonest.

Science is precisely an observational and methodological search for answers, not for proof of anything. If you were interested in what you can learn from science instead of attempting to prove it wrong, then you would understand that there is no need to prove that the big bang, nor anything else actually happened when your interest is in learning what facts actually can be learned about life on this earth. There is more evidence than the theist with creation on the brain will ever want to admit awareness of that life has progressed from simple to complex at rates which vary on our genetic tree at points which are very much consistent with how they would if the changing genetics was the cause of this itself, not some heavenly button-pusher designer. There is undeniable evidence which theists throw garbage at, but genes do change over the generations, and this has been observed in real time with short-span creatures such as insects, while the evidence for "microevolution" limitations is as absent as the idea is a wishful and time-wasting filibuster. ALL EVOLUTION IS MICROEVOLUTION without the presumption of outside intervention, for which no evidence exists - it's the simplest answer, it explains the most which can be observed, and the simplest explanation is typically the best. The creationist and his ridiculous argument for "kinds" does not wish to accept the likelihood which this implies, that we all have an ancestor which was not only (in all liklihood) some sort of a lower primate, but that our own lineage descends all the way down the tree through rabbits, rats, fish, and on down further through lower forms, but worldwide evolution of species from low to higher complexity could have happened no differently for the evidence which exists. Fossilized life forms are empirical evidence, and the details on change-triggering environments which can be determined in the fossil strata from low to high is circumstantial. Note that none of this is either a wishful attempt to manipulate your attention away from evidence at hand unless you call moving the goalposts, use of rhetoric, and starting a different argument (typically consisting of fallacious attacks) when all else fails are what you call "evidence". That is really all the creationist can do to keep himself employed today in the business of theism-based creationist apologetics.