That's just classification preference and it proves nothing but scientists' willing ignorance of the obvious.
So if a scientist classifies humans as apes, it's just "classification preference" that proves nothing except "willing ignorance", but if you classify man separately, it's somehow something different.
Scientists cannot prove abiogenesis, big bang theory, macro-evolution or any of the many, many assumptions used in the "truth" of such theories that deny the obvious, that the Creator created.
Still with the proof thing? Scientists don't require or care about proof, which is seldom possible. They require compelling evidence, and their degree of belief is commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence.
Why do faith based thinkers, who generally lack even evidence for their beliefs, speak of proof to the rest of us?
Why do you offer arguments that you would not accept yourselves? Where is your proof of a god? I'm guessing that such proof is not necessary for you to believe. Is that honers? Is that good faith argumentation or special pleading?
because existence is an expression of design, there is the implication that there would be a "designer" of some sort.
Now we know why you use that word. The baggage of a designer that you realize is attached to it. In that case, I'll call it patterns. I prefer a less tendentious term.
"Design" doesn't carry any baggage, for me. Design is just design, it does not automatically mean there has to be a "designer".
Really? Maybe you'd better read your other posts.