"If he redeems not only man but all of creation, it then follows that he must be phsysically related to all of creation."
The problem is that it doesn't necessarily follow at all. It redeems all of creation because all of creation was affected by the fall. Why was all of creation affected by the fall? As a curse for Adam's sin. It wasn't because the animals were related to Adam that they were cursed. It was because God cursed the ground and the animals because of Adam, and it affected all of creation.
Likewise, the restoration is the restoration of all things, which has nothing to do with whether or not there is a biological ancestry of other things to man.
For the author's argument to make sense, we would have had to have sinned when we were microbial, and that's why it affected all of creation. But in fact the reason that the curse affected creation is quite easily shown from scripture that it had nothing to do with creations biological relatedness to the rest of us, and therefore, neither does its restoration.
"All you have done is either repeat the usual AiG party line answer of no death before the fall or sniped at the paper's digressions and side notes."
I just didn't feel the need to answer an argument that didn't logically follow, and instead decided to point out the places where he totally ignores what the Bible actually says and pretends there is agreement between his point of view and the Bible.
I see, animals and plants were cursed for something they didn't do. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
For the author's argument to make sense, we would have had to have sinned when we were microbial
Huh?