Only what the evidence supports.
That is science.
Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science, it is apologetics.
So evolution only happens after great floods, where it happens at thousands of times the pace ever proposed by evolutionary biology, but only within set limits that have never been defined.
So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?
What evidence did she cite?
Contorting the evidence so it supports what you already supposedly ‘know’ about Biblical floods and ‘kinds’ is not science
What evidence did I contort?
So what is going to stop a 2% genetic DNA difference between humans and chimps after six million years if creatures are capable of much greater changes after only six thousand?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be assuming ape to man evolution and then saying the differences between apes and humans should be much greater than between elephants 6000 years ago and today. They don't have the DNA of the elephants that have existed 6000 years ago to compare to today's elephants, so even if we assume evolution your question doesn't make any sense.