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?
My point has been that Science has be wrong many times in the past. You may have faith in it's accuracy now, that is your mistake to make. I know I cannot convince you, I only hoped you were opened minded enough to look at another theory. But then science has been cursed with closed mined, closed looped people since the beginning.
Your reasons for believing in an old earth have be at least questioned by some of the greatest minds on earth. (But they are not as enlightened as you.) All the forms of aging you have used have been at least found to be flawed. That is a fact, so I admire your faith. (Faith: Believing in something you cannot see or prove).
May your god save your soul, if you believe in that sort of thing.