The thing is, they are still sorted according to the evolutionary relationships that we infer from other means. Let’s say you took all the simiiformes in the world and use genetics and morphology to construct a phylogenetic tree, and you would end up with 2 main branches – the catarrhini (apes and old world monkeys), and platyrrhini (new world monkeys). The important point to note is that you can do this without any reference to where these animals are actually found – just based on morphology and genetics we can infer that all the catarrhines are closer to each other than to any platyrrhines, and vice versa. And then we can go out into the world and look at where these animals are, and find that the catarrhines are all native to Africa (or parts of Europe / Asia which they could migrate to, seeing as all these land masses are joined or at least were joined before the Suez Canal was built), while all the platyrrhines are native to the Americas instead. I don’t think that something like this would have happened by chance. I’m not sure how many “kinds” of new world monkeys and old world monkeys creationists believe must have spread out from the Ark, however there must have been many. If we take genus as a rough indication of “kind” (as an indication, this places lions and tigers in the same kind, but not in the same kind as domestic cats), then we would have around 25 “kinds” of new world monkeys and 30 “kinds” of old world monkeys and apes, and that is a conservative estimate. I find it awfully hard to believe that somehow, when spread out from the ark, all 25 of the platyrrhines just happened to make it to the Americas and not a single one settled elsewhere! It is similarly hard to believe that, while spreading from the ark, all 30 kinds of catarrhines happily settled in Africa / Eurasia, but not one made it to the Americas, despite all the platyrrhines not having any apparent difficulty in getting there! It seems too obvious to have happened by chance, and if God guided them by his divine providence I really think he’s just messing with us!
Or He made a choice to do something a specific way and you are misinterpreting what happened, therefore it wouldn't be God messing with you, rather your misinterpretation that is causing your confusion.
The fact that we have no fossils catarrhines in the Americas etc etc means that we have no record of them living in America, it does not rule it out completely. As with chimpanzee fossils, we may discover some, so you cannot assert that not a single one settled here. There are many living fossils that prove based on old earth assumptions, that organisms can live for millions of years and yet we have a huge gap (millions of years) in the fossil record of their existence that we currently posses. I had suggested this before but you didn't get the point, or ignored it. This is where jumping to conclusions is getting you in trouble. That is a fallacious argument, an argument from silence of the fossil record.
Agreed. I just think it’s hard to believe that if marsupials did live all over the world before the flood, the same places where they fossilized in the flood just happened to be the same places they live afterwards. If the fossils were made after the flood that would make much more sense, as then you at least have an explanation for why their fossils are in those places – because that’s where they live and die. What you don’t have is an explanation for why all these marsupials are there in the first place and why no placental mammals made it here. I would think if animals were spreading out from the ark, there might be a general trend of species to migrate depending on what environments they were best suited to, but it would be by no means absolute.
Again, I refer to my argument above, this is an argument from silence. I am no expert, but the fossils forming under catastrophic conditions after the flood would make sense right? You have more answers, but no one can tell if they are right. You build all of your conclusions on the philosophical presupposition that this natural evidence can explain everything that happened, and that nothing supernatural influenced our natural evidence, yet this philosophical presupposition is outside the realm of science.
I agree that things are always open to interpretation, but to me evolution is the best interpretation because it explains so much, the geographical distribution of species we were just discussing and the hierarchy of derived traits from earlier, and much more beyond. Now I admit I know far from everything relating to this issue, but I do think I know enough about the world to decide which one is more likely out of creation and evolution. It’s not an absolute decision, I just see evolution as far, far more likely.
You base your assumptions on lack of evidence in the fossil record, which isn't scientific, it is based on your faith in a naturalistic philosophy. Creationism explains just as much, but we take into account the historical testimony of Jesus Christ, since it is historically reliable and it's claims have been verified through prophecy, archaeology, internal testimony, external testimony, etc. You can say that your philosophy explains everything better, but the evidence is being interpreted through your philosophy. You are throwing away evidence and saying "see, everything fits".