Replies

What else is she going to say? Only what the evidence supports.

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.

She cited the evidence that these fossils were 50 some million years old.

Contorting evidence on fossilization to fit some preconceived notion of a biblical flood is what you contorted.

You have no idea what I am talking about? Probably because you don't really understand the subject.

There is only a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimp.

If the “limits” you propose on evolutionary change are constrained somehow to less than a 2% genetic difference, it would be impossible for all species of animals to have evolved from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions within the last few thousand years.

The evolution you propose would be thousands of times more rapid than ever proposed by an evolutionary biologist, and it would exceed the change of 2% in genetic DNA that would separate humans and chimps for those species.

So if an animal, fresh off the Ark, can change over the next few thousand years to become many different species over the Earth, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change; what is to stop a human population from diverging from a chimp population and accumulating a 2% genetic DNA difference over some six million years?

How do you reconcile your belief in massive evolutionary change in a short time, far exceeding a 2% genetic DNA change (while somehow limited to staying within a “kind”), while simultaneously deny that slow incremental evolutionary change over millions of years can derive a 2% genetic difference?

Is that simple enough for you? If not I don't really know how to dumb it down any further to make it understandable to you.