Given this statement:
I am not denying some aspects of miracle in the global flood.
this statement:
The bottom line to my position is that science cannot be so positive that the Biblical account is impossible and that science has empirically falsified that account.
necessarily follows, no matter the evidence.
In addition, you are yet again displaying a remarkably infantile understanding of what science does.
Science is never, ever "positive" about anything. What science can conclude, and has concluded, is that assuming that natural processes have functioned pretty much in the past as they have now, and given the evidence that we have to date, the Noahic flood could not have happened.
To paraphrase your statement so that it more accurately reflects reality:
"I am so wedded to the literal truth of the bible that it's impossible for science to convince me otherwise, no matter the evidence, because I will always fall back on a miracle to justify my belief."
I honestly don't know why you bother even discussing things in this vein.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2