Summations Only

The fact that there was no genetic bottleneck for every species on the planet at the same time within the last 200,000 years is the genetic bottleneck evidence and what refutes a world wide flood in the last 200,000 years.

2 of a species, or even 7 pairs, would result in a genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to have a strong, diverse gene pool, when there are only a few members. Yes I am, as the evidence shows. How would it correspond, radiometrically, to a time that radiometrically dates to 2.5 billion years ago and more?

Very true. Is there any reason to believe it was not? All the evidence points to things being the same now as it was then, what you need to posit the opposite idea is evidence that contradicts the mainstream viewpoint.Besides, we know how DNA works. Even if we posit that there was a supergenome in the past, there's only so much that could account for. For example, you have the classic example of blue or brown eyes. (I know that eye color is influenced by a handful of genes, leading to "blends" but the simplified version will illustrate the issue.)When you have a drastic reduction in populations, you have a couple of things, one of which is called the "Founder Effect." For example, if the two proto-cheetahs that were on the ark had homozygous, brown eyes, then they could not have had blue-eyed offspring. This would lead to a greater than expected occurence of brown-eyed cheetahs. This is a simplified version, but you can see that some "super-genome" wouldn't be able to erase that situation. You either have brown eyes or you don't.The same could be said for coloring, limb length, bone structure, etc. With only a few individuals, unless this genome somehow had the genes for both long limbs and short limbs, without killing the individual, there is no reason to expect it to solve the problem.If you feel that genetics would have been so drastically different in the past that an individual could have had conflicting sets of genes, but still survive without some sort of malformity, then you'd have to back that up with evidence. Otherwise, you're left saying "This could have happened", and we say, "but it might not have," and nothing gets solved. We can look at things that are light years away in the cosmos, and doing so means we are looking thousands, millions, or nillions of years into the past. All evidence suggests that the laws of physics have remained unchanged. Since chemistry is just specialized physics, and biology is just specialized chemistry, there is ample evidence that things work the same now as they did then.Also, it is inductively valid. If you assume that things will change, and the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, I'm fairly confident you'll be disappointed. Now, apply that backwards, if the sun rose in the east this morning, isn't it likely it rose in the east yesterday? The day before that? If you want to posit that things have changed, you need a couple of things before it becomes a valid claim. One is a mechanism that would change things so drastically. Two is evidence for that mechanism, or at least evidence that things were different. What is your evidence for this? Radiometric dating has been shown to be accurate based on many different measuring types that all agree. What you need to figure out is why everything agrees with an estimate of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, despite that not being true. Everythying would have had to be modified differently, but adjusted to come to the same, erroneous conclusion, and that doesn't make much sense without a mechanism in evidence.I gues what it all comes down to is, if you want to posit that things were different than it appears they were, you have to have evieence that they actually were different, or evidence for a mechanism that would change how things appear.I hope this isn't considered "snarky", but it is just as valid to say that everything was created 10 minutes ago, including us and our memories. But without evidence to support this view, there is no reason for anyone to believe it.