I am not here to answer to every irrelevant question u may imagine.
Our questions were not irrelevant, and until you answer them, you will have failed in your mission to prove your site.
My site said- a bottleneck was discovered that may well be Noah's bottleneck.
It is not Noah's bottleneck, because only one species bottlenecked. Furthermore, you have yet to establish that the story of Noah's ark is even feasible, but you have shown us clearly that you cannot establish that by your avoidance of my questions about it.
So far scientists have not figured out what climatic adverse event led to the bottleneck, and till they do, this topic is dead.
No, it isn't. You have made a claim on your site that we have refuted, and now you are running away from it.
Now, can we proceed. Or u all are scared and wish to keep beating this dead horse?
So you concede that you cannot answer any of our refutations then, and your claim about the bottleneck of 70,000 yrs ago being proof of Noah's Ark is rubbish.
Fine, what's your next topic? (And better luck next time, you'll need it if your next claim is as nonsensical as the last).