Okay. But do you agree that however many kinds of cats were on the ark, if the number is smaller than the number of extant cat species, that means multiple cat species have developed from a single example of the cat kind? Which means, in other words, that multiple species share a common ancestor?
also, by some evolutions (humanist)admissions....
There's loonies in every group.
“..Which means, in other words, that multiple species share a common ancestor?...”
yes, having a common ancestor to which they descended is not example of evolution, but the variety of encoded genetics within each animal (that is already there...case: dog varieties)
“Darrell Huff correctly observed: “People can be wrong in the mass, just as they can individually” (1959, p. 122). If something is true, stating it a million times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a million times does not make it true. And the prestige of a position’s advocates has nothing to do with whether or not the fact is true or false. It is incorrect (to use one example) to suggest that because a Nobel laureate states something it is true by definition. Were that the case, when Nobel laureate W.B. Shockley suggested that highly intelligent women be artificially inseminated using spermatozoa from Nobel Prize winners to produce superintelligent offspring, we should have taken him up on his suggestion. Of course, such an idea was based on nothing more than the narcissistic dreamings of an over-inflated ego. As Taylor has commented: “Status in the field of science is no guarantee of the truth” (1984, p. 226). Factual knowledge is not based on: (a) the number of people supporting the claim; or (b) the importance of the one(s) making that claim.”
Huff, Darrell (1959), How to Take a Chance (New York: W.W. Norton).
Taylor, Ian (1984), In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing).
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.-Apologetics Press,