Tirian, I have also deduced a logical proof that a coincidence is guaranteed, and a remarkable one, like the lottery.
What do I mean? I mean that StormanNorman basically asked this question; "are you suggesting a remarkable coincidence, of astronomical odds?" BUT, we have a situation here, were a remarkable coincidence MUST have taken place whether you believe in a young age or an old age.
If you look at message at message two in this thread, you will see a correlation on a picture/diagram, for a 6,000 year old earth, and look how the temperature and diffusivity of zircons correlates perfectly with a young earth.
So if you are tempted to think, "Norman must be right, this kind of matching data set is impossible by chance", in fact under both circumstances we have a data set, and one of them MUST have happened by chance.
If the earth is old, the data for zircons matching with youth is a coincidence.
If the earth is young, the data for the distance and age of the islands is a coincidence.
So there are only two possibilities, 1. A coincidence. 2. A coincidence.
Someone has to be wrong. So my answer to Norman is this; why choose the young earth model as wrong, and the perfectly matching, correlating data, a coincidence? So then Norm', if you accept old age, you also have to accept a coincidence. You're in the same boat - you can't accuse us of something you have to also believe yourself!
(Just thought I would make this post as I don't want you to be tricked into chasing a red herring. Do you notice that the data set I given was completely ignored in this thread, yet they want to continue to repeat this data to us, ad nauseam. That seems to be the debate tactic - to endlessly repeat the claim even when the claim is addressed. )