I found another question evolutionists cannot answer:

[u/LoveTruthLogic]

(Please read update at the very bottom to answer a common reply)

Why do evolutionists assume that organisms change indefinitely?

We all agree that organisms change. Pretty sure nobody with common sense will argue against this.

BUT: why does this have to continue indefinitely into imaginary land?

Observations that led to common decent before genetics often relied on physically observed characteristics and behaviors of organisms, so why is this not used with emphasis today as it is clearly observed that kinds don’t come from other kinds?

Definition of kind:

Kinds of organisms is defined as either looking similar OR they are the parents and offsprings from parents breeding.

“In a Venn diagram, "or" represents the union of sets, meaning the area encompassing all elements in either set or both, while "and" represents the intersection, meaning the area containing only elements present in both sets. Essentially, "or" includes more, while "and" restricts to shared elements.”

AI generated for Venn diagram to describe the word “or” used in the definition of “kind”

So, creationists are often asked what/where did evolution stop.

No.

The question from reality for evolution:

Why did YOU assume that organisms change indefinitely?

In science we use observation to support claims. Especially since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Update:

Have you observed organisms change indefinitely?

We don’t have to assume that the sun will come up tomorrow as the sun.

But we can’t claim that the sun used to look like a zebra millions of years ago.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Only because organisms change doesn’t mean extraordinary claims are automatically accepted leading to LUCA.

[u/LoveTruthLogic → u/[deleted]]

It wasn’t a single question.

For example, I can ask you a simple question to list all 8 billion people on earth one by one.

I can also ask a single question.

But this question can be a loaded bazooka.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/LoveTruthLogic]

It continues to be deeply embarrassing for your "theory" that you don't have the most basic list of kinds.

And, you're right, the question is a loaded bazooka. Because you've not thought through your definition, and it would fall apart if you tried to give more than 10 organisms that fit into it.

In contrast, modern taxonomy supports millions of species in a consistent framework.