Birds and Reptiles

And right there is where your thinking runs right off the rails.This is no more a valid statement than "Assuming the accuracy of Harry Potter" or "Assuming the accuracy of Ovid's Metamorphosis"Assuming in and of itself is a failure. Applying it to a document which is demonstrably inaccurate is twice as bad.

Not only isn't there solid evidence for the events as laid out in the Exodus, the specifics contradict recorded history.But, much more importantly, the Exodus is _VERY BAD_ theology.If you bothered to think about it for even a fraction of a second, you would NEVER bring up Exodus in any discussion, much less one about Biblical Validity.Just SOME of the issues:
#1) God states that he has hardened the Pharaoh's heart, meaning he has taken freewill out of the equation, decided Pharaoh's actions for him and then proceeds to punish him for doing as God made him do.#2) God states in Exodus - "I am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other God's before me". There is NO REASON to make this statement unless you are defacto acknowledging that other Gods are real.#3) The magic of the Pharaoh's priests PROVES that other Gods are real#4) A benevolent God would not bring down a series of plagues upon an entire city to punish the actions of one man (particularly one man who is doing as God forces him to do)#5) A Benevolent/All knowing God would not start with weak plagues and get progressively stronger if he knows only the last plague will work#6) A benevolent/all powerful God would not need to use plagues at all, since he can just give the Jews invisibility, or make them giants, or give them flight, or teleport them, or make the Egyptians forget, or move all the egyptians, or make all the egyptians sleep for three days.... The number of NON-violent, benevolent choices available to an omnipotent being are literally endless.Exodus is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to disbelieve everything else in the Bible. It's clear that the "God" of exodus is NOT something worth worshiping.

You opinion doesn't really matter. What matters are facts.You are assuming that because the scientists don't agree with you, they aren't objective. Guess what, agreeing with you is not a criteria for objectivity.And as far as "devastating" some assumptions, you act as though the "assumptions" exist in theory only. As though real scientists weren't using real science to produce real results.If you showed us a passage in the Bible that said that gravity doesn't exist, would everything suddenly fall up because our "assumptions" had been devastated?Lastly, this whole concept of "supporting the Biblical record" is a joke. It doesn't matter if ONE THING in the Bible is true, it has no bearing on some OTHER THING in the Bible.There could actually have been a "good Samaritan", that doesn't mean that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs just like on the Flintstones.Harry Potter books regularly reference London. London is a place which actually exists. That doesn't make Harry's magic school real.The Lord of the Rings talks about a gold ring. I OWN a gold ring. I know they exist. Doesn't make elves real.The Bible is set in a particular area during a particular time period. Pointing out that X really existing in that area does not support claims that so and so could do magic trick Y in another area.

The "ideology" of science is that reality is real. If you don't "buy into that", there's not really much to "debate" is there?What possible debate can be had when one person insists that their own unsubstaniated fantasy is as valid as objective observation?Could we debate whether or not giant Smurfs walk on the face of the moon? You argue that they don't using science, I'll argue that they do using my beliefs.That's not debate. That's just one person being irrational. So, are you now consented that anyone who is a "bonafide scientist" is always right over someone who isn't?What if two "bonafide scientists" disagree with one another?
What if one says X and 5 say Y?
What if one says X and 500 say Y?
What if one says X and 500,000 say Y?How do you weigh the statements? Or is it just that if they agree with you they are right, no matter which website they downloaded their degree from?