When asked to prove Evolution, Evolutionists always provide evidence of speciation instead. There are different breeds of dogs. Cave fish have gone blind after living in the dark for so long. Finches have different beak sizes. You probably look significantly different from your own parents. See? Evolution in action!
Except it's not. Speciation is entirely compatible with Biblical Creationism. The Biblical position is that animals reproduce according to their own kinds. That doesn't mean there can't be any change at all. You'll need something bigger to prove Evolution.
In an effort to challenge this, Evolutionists claim that "kind" is just a meaningless term Creationists invented in order to deny the evidence before their own eyes. Not so. Rather, Creationists like Edward Blyth and Carl Linnaeus wrote about change within kinds long before Darwin published On The Origin Of Species. Furthermore, this has been written in the Bible for 3,400 years. So to claim that Creationists are just making an ad hoc claim is just absurd.
But we'll roll with it for a moment. We'll pretend that "kind" is just something Creationists made up. We'll even pretend that Creationism didn't exist until just before the Nye vs. Ham debate in 2014, giving Evolutionists significantly more wriggle room than they deserve. There is a classification system which, while it does not line up perfectly with the term "kinds", is accepted by Evolutionists, and is useful for this point: The Linnaean system (oh look, they're already using Creation science that proves Creationists believed in speciation before Darwin).
The Linnaean system has 7 levels of animal classification: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Evolutionists contend that all of these are connected by an Evolutionary heritage. Notice, however, that species is the "lowest" level of the system. When you prove speciation, you are merely proving that genera can branch out into different species. As previously mentioned, this is universally accepted by both Creationists and Evolutionists. It is perfectly compatible with Creationism, and was initially spotted by Creationists like Edward Blyth, a Creationist (whom Darwin plagiarised), in the first place.
But what about higher levels of the classification system? It's one thing to say lions and tigers are related, it's another thing entirely to suggest lions and lice are related. The higher up the scale goes, the more disagreement creeps in. No Creationist, for example, believes that two classes are related. Usually, it is seen to be a bit of a stretch to suggest change happens beyond the family level.
Can Evolutionists prove otherwise? This whole discussion proves they can't. If they had proof that Evolution happens beyond the family level, they wouldn't spend so long trying to prove what Creationists already believe.
Not only can Evolutionists not demonstrate that all levels are connected by an Evolutionary heritage, but it doesn't take too much to demonstrate that they can't possibly be. The higher up you go, the more fundamental differences there are between animals within that grouping. Many of these fundamental differences are essential to survival or the continuation of the species. There are several features we need to survive that a fish doesn't. There are several features a fish needs to reproduce that a bird doesn't. Features like colour are not essential to survival, and thus it is possible to change, whether gradually or in a single generation. Features like beak shape/size are also not essential to survival, so they can change relatively safely. They are desirable in certain environments, of course, so they can provide advantages/disadvantages, but ultimately, there is no scientific reason to believe speciation cannot happen.
However, features like the respiratory system are important. These cannot be so easily changed because even the slightest change would be incredibly damaging, if not fatal. Similarly, the development of such systems would require some form of life support. Life support like a womb. When you were conceived, you did not have all of your vital organs. They developed inside your mother's womb. If not for that womb, you would have died. Many babies are born prematurely, and they do die, some of them even with the most diligent medical care. Yet, if Evolution were true, something similar to what happens inside a womb, or an egg, had to happen, only outside of the safety of said womb/egg.
Similarly, there are different methods of reproduction. This doesn't affect the individual, which can live comfortably without a functioning reproductive system, but it is lethal to Evolution because if an individual cannot reproduce, it doesn't matter if it lives for millions of years, Evolution cannot happen. Do giraffes lay eggs? Do lizards spit out spores? Do gorillas require pollination? Do birds give live birth? These different reproduction systems all exist, they are all fundamentally different, and yet if they were even slightly altered, they would not work. Evolution would be dead before it began.
You see, then, that while it is entirely logical to believe in speciation, and perfectly compatible with the Bible, it is impossible in every conceivable way for Evolution to occur. Change within kinds does not prove change outside of kinds. Not only can Evolutionists not prove change beyond kinds, but change beyond kinds is impossible because of, of all things, natural selection. The very process that has been claimed to be the mechanism by which Evolution happens since the start just happens to be the one thing that prevents Evolution from ever happening.
So, what now? Now you, the reader, are presented with three choices. The first choice is just plain daft: Accept Evolution as scientifically valid despite the fact it self destructs within the time frame of a high school biology lesson. The second choice is more reasonable: Reject Evolution, but you don't necessarily have to pick up anything in its stead. Despite what Evolutionists might tell you, it is ok to not know where we came from.
But the third option is far greater. It's reasonable because it is well evidenced by every field of academia. It is not illogical because it is not legitimately threatened by any fact of reality. It is advisable because the rewards of accepting it are far greater than anything you could possibly lose by accepting it, or hope to gain by rejecting it, even if it turned out to not be true. Pick up a Bible. That book contains not only the truth about the origins of our universe, our planet and our race, but more importantly, it tells us everything we need to know about the God who created us. It tells us what He intends to do with us, and how to accept that. Right now, you are a broken creation living in a fallen world. It is fallen because of us. We sinned against our Creator by disobeying His commands, and the result is that we are deserving of His wrath. But He instead sent His Son to take the punishment we deserve so that we can be a part of the new heavens and earth He creates and live with Him for all eternity. Eternal life, or snake oil. Seems like an easy choice to make.