You won’t get it. That’s what Creation science is for. To fill in the gaps of our knowledge based on the a priori claim that the Bible is true and accurate in its historical rendering.
I am doing Creation science. There is no chapter and verse for that all the time.
That’s what you call dreaming up the wackiest stories humanly possible to try and make your Biblical beliefs squeeze into a scientifically literate world? Creation “science”. 
I’m spraying you with a virtual spray bottle for conversing with @r_speir. Bad @T_aquaticus! Bad!
So much for Creation science following the Bible. It seems that they just make stuff up as they go.
I stopped scratching the couch, if that’s any consolation. 
@r_speir, why do you completely reject scientific evidence if it contradicts a literalistic reading of Genesis, yet prefer “hunches” with virtually zero Biblical support?
I suppose you can call it “doing Creation science” if you wish, but most people call it “making stuff up.”
Uh huh. So the guy who created all life on earth out of nothing in two days now needs 200 years to prepare to repopulate the earth after his Flood.
Makes perfect sense.
Not.
In other words, untethered wild speculation supported by neither scripture nor scientific evidence.
Heterozygosity is not in the Bible. The concept of one species morphing into another, by any means whatsoever, has no convincing exegetical support. The idea enjoys no tradition in the church from the reformation through to the apostles; and far from just filling in a gap, may actually be contrary to scripture. Arguably, there are cults with more textual support.
You do the same thing to fill in the blanks of your knowledge. I could give you more examples.
How did Abiogenesis happen?
Explanation: abiogenesis is the theory that life came from non living matter. Cell theory says that life comes from life or more correctly cells come from other cells. abiogenesis says that cell theory is wrong and that at some time in the distance past cells came into being by accidental random natural causes.
As opposed to intentionally random? 
Here’s another. What caused the “great leap” forward in evolution of the human brain?
As conditions worsened during the ice age, our brains had to become better, and changes that favoured this would have been worth their weight in gold - or at least antelope meat.
How about the recent “forearm artery” fiasco?
What story did you tell at first? Now it is having to be “rethought”, possibly “retracted”?
Here’s one of your made-up stories. Fun to read. Easy to disbelieve
Hee hee. No.
This is a silly semantic game. Neither evolutionists nor creationists think cell theory implies that cells regress to an infinite past.
If you are asking me, I have no idea as to how or if abiogenesis happened. I personally do not believe that the universe is closed under nature.
This presupposes the evolutionary model is true. That’s why I think you’re not understanding the argument. What if it’s wrong?
No. I don’t have to assume that humanity evolved and share ancestry with other primates to explain my example.
Rather in my example that explains the principle of why focusing on specific mutations is a mistake, I merely assume 5 mutations accumulate over 500 generations(these are just arbitrary values of course). I do this so that I can then explain why focusing back on those 5 specific mutations later, rather than just any 5 mutations, makes a huge difference to the waiting time.
I’m afraid that I feel the same way about you. Perhaps you can at least explain to me whether you understand the principle I am trying to get across. That it makes a big difference to the waiting time for mutations, that you focus on specific mutations, rather than just the total number of them? Have I at least got this point across?
Ummmm… 
If it’s not in scripture, or obvious in nature, I’d be careful with extra biblical miracles. Being so inconsistent undermines your arguments @r_speir
In order to determine if an idea is wrong we first have to consider what the universe would look like if the idea were right. We call this a hypothesis. Unfortunately, you seem to be confusing a hypothesis with an assumption. Those are two different things. Simply considering an idea is not assuming the idea is right.
Again, presupposes the evolutionary model is true.