Aside from the needles insertion of a reference to evolution, I agree completely.
Assuming your comment is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, please answer the following:
What is the likelihood that a male and female of some 'new' species would be born at approximately the same time, in the same general location and with the exact same mutation; survive to adulthood; find each other; successfully breed and raise young to adulthood?
An argument that they could have come from the same mother and father is not reasonable since there would have to have been two separate sperm and eggs. The likelihood that both of those sperm and eggs would have identical genetic mutations is far too great to be imaginable.
Evolutionists are great at speaking in very broad terms about small changes over long periods of time, but when forced to look at what would be required at some particular point when a new species could appear, there is nothing but silence or unsupported claim that such a specific event is not required for evolution to be true.
Surely you are kidding?
For pete's sake how many times has this argument come up??
What is the likelihood that this ignorant question was already asked in this very thread, and answered in my post #114, and you didn't bother to read the thread first before diving in?
Oh, right, the likelihood of that is "certainty".
And what is the likelihood that you have already asked this same question and already had it answered before in this post, eleven short days ago? You can't even claim not to have seen it, because you responded to it.
So why are you now dishonestly pretending to not know the answer to your question? And why are you dishonestly pretending that we responding to such questions with "nothing but silence", as you falsely claim in this same post:
Evolutionists are great at speaking in very broad terms about small changes over long periods of time, but when forced to look at what would be required at some particular point when a new species could appear, there is nothing but silence or unsupported claim that such a specific event is not required for evolution to be true.
He says that there is "nothing but silence" from evolutionists in response to questions about "what would be required" for evolutionary change. But not only is this false, HE MAKES HIS SNOTTY FALSE CLAIM ATTACHED TO A QUESTION THAT HE *KNOWS* WE'VE ALREADY ANSWERED RECENTLY.
Just how dishonest *does* someone have to be to be an anti-evolution creationist, anyway?