Thank the chance of star dust coming together that we evolved enough to come to some binding to morality that caused western civilization to allow you to your opinion!
The chances of what you refer to as 'star dust' coming together, and binding/bonding, and in several millenia spawning an ecosystem that is extremely well conceived are so small that their happening by some sudden and random rush of events are low! Thus i can in some extent agree with you that the main flaw in the big bang theory is how entropy and chaos could be overcome and perfectly designed ecosystems arise!
However the thing that i find ludicrous in your posts is your adamant acceptance of the Earth being 6,000 years old!(And since you may try to say you did not say any such thing this is part of the post you put forth: I believe the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old - after Eden.)
I am not here to advocate God, or propose evolutionary theories! None of those goals are my objectives, thus do not think i am some fervent religious zealot nor some science oriented know-it-all(although in reality i am a science oriented know-it-all). My point was just to say that accepting that the Earth came into being 6,000 years ago is pure lunacy!
Simply so!
There are so many pieces of factual evidence that point to the Earth being far older than 6,000 yrs old (even if you discounted scientific dating that gives the age of the Earth as 4.55 Billion years). For example go and do a simply geological survey, and look at the different rock strata! The rocks were obviously set eons ago!
And just in case you change your argument (or someone else with your thinking) to just mean living life....or lets even make it more difficult for me and insist on just mammals.....the fact still remains that they were in existence millions of years ago!
Basically there is NO CHANCE the Earth came into being just a couple of thousand years ago! No chance.
However let me try and assist you with your theory! I once remember seeing this program (whether i believed or not is another matter altogether) where this person was saying that the 'days' used by God in creating the world were not to be taken in the literal sense.....maybe they were symbolic for 'ages' or something like that! Do i think that person was trying to 'cop out?' Maybe! But at the very least his train of logic made more sense (and he actually had some rather interesting points of view). The alternate viewpoints of adamantly insisting that the Earth is just several thousand years old is just plain silly! I am sorry to say so but any logical person would arrive to the same conclusion....that no matter whether you believe the Earth was born by a Big Bang, by an omniPotent Creator, or by feuding Alien Races; one thing is for certain......the Earth is MUCH older than 6,000 years!
By the way i would encourage you to read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C.However the tale was a mythical epic of how he came to power, and one of the stories written in Summerian clay tablets depicted a 'worldwide flood' that covered the whole Earth! The funny thing is that this myth was written long before the Pentatauch (hence it is a predecessor to the biblical story of the Great Flood). Also it is 'interesting' that these Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite (an Indo-European language, a family of languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor).
Many scholars attribute the flood stories of such diverse tomes as the biblical Genesis and even esoteric books like the Popol Vuh to adaptations of the Gilgamesh great flood story. And i feel you will not agree with this....but then how come the Gilgamesh epic was written long before the 'time of Noah,' and that it encompases the same tenets! And that one of the languages it was written in (Akkadian) is a semitic ancestor to what came to be known as Hebrew? You may not believe anything i post.....but there is something very weird here. And very 'interesting.'
And many agree.
Someone is wrong. I, of course, feel the evidence is obvious who.
And the flaw in the "but the odds are so low!" argument are so obvious it reinforces to me the point that there's no chance of having a logical discussion here:
Given billions of years, then something that is a million to one shot is certain to happen over and over again.
Look, I consider several of your conclusions to be terribly flawed, so much so that it makes me feel that attempting to discuss this with you would be pointless. I don't believe that the bible can possibly be the word of god.
So any conclusions you present after suggesting it is become untenable, to me.
So if you'd like to discuss this ancient flood that the thread is about, I'd love to. But if you're only going to claim that "the bible is the word of god and my opinion of the flood is that the bible is direct evidence of it down to the last detail", we have nothing to discuss.
I believe you're clearly wrong, for the obvious reasons.
Now, any opinion on the actual event the thread is about? What do you think, slow flooding or fast flooding of the Black Sea?