No. I agree with that.
There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of the world and the life in it, which contradict one another. Science has offered an account of the history of the universe that contradicts both of them. You have been given many examples of discrepancies between science and scripture already. There is no need to repeat them. If you haven't seen them yet, you won't later, either.
You cannot see these things for reasons already explained to you here , which you chose not to comment on. My position hasn't changed since then, and the argument still stands.
If it were accurate, it would be both. The Big Bang theory is both. It is a scientific account of the history of the universe. Genesis is neither. It's mythology.
Science contradicts the biblical flood story. You've been told this already, and been given some specifics, but it hasn't gotten through, nor will it. There are dozens of evidenced arguments contradicting the biblical flood story, but one has to be open to the possibility that this flood never occurred to be able to understand why it has already been ruled out by science..
There is only one scientific theory of biological evolution. It can be defined simply as descent with modification.
Or, fleshed out a little more, evolution is the observation that living populations change over time in ways that affect their ability to compete for scarce resources.
Or, one can provide a much more detailed definition including terms such as differential survival, gene pools, speciation, last common ancestor, naturalistic, genetic variation, and natural selection.
No disrespect intended, but your interest in abiogenesis research is not to learn about it, but to contradict the idea that life arose on earth spontaneously because you believe something else by faith.
If you cared about understanding this science, you would already know it. You would have been following it for years as those who are interested have been doing.
And if you suddenly developed a sincere interest in these matters, the information is available to you on the Internet. You would be Googling the subject and reading about the state-of-the-art in abiogenesis.
So, if you want to learn science, do it the way the people you are asking to tutor you did it. You are responsible for your education, not Religious Forums members. Enroll in a university course on abiogenesis, or go down to your local bookseller and purchase any of the fine books written on the subject for lay consumption.
If I'm wrong about your purpose, then you will begin your journey today and find something about abiogenesis from a science source - not religious apologetics - read it, and come back to this forum to tell us what you learned and ask any questions your reading created for you.
Surprise me, and take me up on this offer, one I've made a dozen times before, and one which has never been accepted.
Isn't that what you're doing? You say that science and your religion are compatible, and you have been shown evidence that they are in disagreement on multiple fronts. You've ignored it all. You've been told that there isn't enough water on earth to submerge all dry land, and that the evidence that would have been left behind by such an event is absent.
Plus, a little reasoning can help you reject that story. First, no god is going to purge the earth of its mistake and then repopulate it using the same breeding stock.
Second, a good god would simply repair the defective line of humans rather than kill virtually everything on dry land.
Third, we've seen from the recent construction of a ark according to the specifications given in the Bible that this feat could not have occurred in the ancient past. It took crews of truck, cranes, and metal braces and fasteners not available to Noah, who had a team of eight, most of which one presumes would be out gathering penguins from antarctica and kangaroos from Australia.
Fourth, do you know how hard rain would have to fall to submerge Everest in 40 days? We're talking about approximately 30 feet of rain an hour if the whole world was being rained upon, or 60 feet an hour if only half of the world was raining. That's a roofless three (or six) story building filling every hour of a six week deluge. That isn't possible, at least not on earth. Also, such a deluge would probably sink a modern cruise ship, much less an ancient wooden boat.
And if you want to say that most of the water bubbled up from springs rather than fell, this would still be a worldwide torrent of epic proportion (literally) requiring water not known to exist to come percolating up from subterranean reservoirs for no apparent reason, remained suspended above the surface of the earth for weeks, then disappeared from view. A little common sense should tell you that if the earth was once completely submerged, then unless earth has lost about 3/4 of the water needed to do that, that land ought to still be submerged.
Also, if this story were true up to the point of the rains beginning to flood the earth, Noah's neighbors would have simply commandeered his ship to save their own lives, and eaten the animals.
We can go on and on, but if reason or evidence could penetrate your faith-based confirmation bias, it would have done so already.
