"Evidence and Faith"

here's the difference, rat.you mention forensic science. the observation that person A is dead is not a conclusion. It's an observation. The conclusion explains how person A died.cancer is an observation.humans are an observation.the existence of the pyramids are an observation.stating that there was a world wide flood (when there is no evidence to suggest such) is not an observation. an observation in this case would be "hey, there's a single layer all around the earth that dates to time X". the flood would be a conclusion.conclusions explain how or why about some observation.and as others have said, if the evidence supports a better conclusion, science goes with the better conclusion. Which is why the age of the earth has gone from being 6,000 years old to eventually 4.6 billion years old.

first, happy 3rd.now then, later in this thread there's this whole spat about creationism being science or whatever. Here's a quote from the AiG article in your PNT about rock formation. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...rs/features/clock-in-rock
{bolding mine}.That is perhaps the biggest reason why what AiG is purporting to do isn't science. It's not because of the Bible per se. They are using the Bible as they're jumping off point, they're starting point. Also note the "according to the Bible". This implies something else, too.Science starts with physical observations. Also, science goes where the evidence leads. That phrase "according to" is suggesting to me, at any rate, that AiG doesn't give a rat's ass about what the real world says, only what the Bible says. This means that if the Bible claims a 6,000 year old earth, but the evidence suggests a 4.5 billion year old earth, what will they go with? The 6,000 figure, regardless of the amount of evidence against the Biblically inspired age.This suggests yet something else--the Bible is inerrant. They will ignore or misrepresent anything that makes the Bible errant.None of this is the hallmark of science. If AiG really wants to pass on the whole "we're doing science" charade, then they, and all other's saying the same thing, should drop the phrase "according to the bible", because of what it implies (and what actually happens).You want to show your Pastor that they're passing off a bunch of bullshit? That quote should help.

technically speaking, the passage's existance (or the noting thereof) is an observation.But quite frankly, unless we can observe what they observed (or the effects of the event or whatever they observed), it's not really relevant.

did the part about "or the effects of whatever event they observed" totally go over you?The bible reports the flood. There are multiple flood myths. (that's your 500 people).We do not see any evidence of a flood in the past.The "observation" in those myths isn't really relevant, because there's nothing to support it.