You like to liberally sprinkle your opinions with appeals to science words such as "empirical evidence" but you have yet to demonstrate what is empirical about your claims and evidence is a matter of interpretation.
Sorry, scientists tend to use scientific terms.
And by empirical we mean that it can be demonstrated and verified.
And no, not all interpretations are equal. Some follow directly from the evidence, while others are a great stretch.
Seeing as you are much more an evangelist for evolution rather than a scientist, I am not surprised. What I want to know is why you get a pass on it here.
I can present evidence. In the case of the global flood purported to have happened about 4,350 years ago, I can also present some evidence from my own archaeological research.
To say it didn't happen on a certain date, that's easy just pick a date and go with it. You might even sidle up with Biblical scholars because its convenient for you, although you reject everything else they have to say as worthless.
To say it didnt happen at all, that's a whole nuther matter, so you avoid that one like the plague.
Not so. It didn't happen at all.
There is no evidence that the earth was entirely under water at any time in the past. Certainly not at any time in human history.
You are not doing science, you are simply a fellow using his credentials on a personal crusade against the Bible.
If you look at my posts you will find that I contradict only those parts of the bible for which there is good empirical evidence that the bible is inaccurate. The global flood is one of the ones I deal with most because:
1) the date is put during historic times, most often about 4,350 years ago;
2) this is a time period in which I have done dozens of archaeological excavations, as well as many more, both earlier and later;
3) thousands of archaeologists, geologists, and other -ologists have produced evidence pertaining to the existence of a global flood; and
4) the evidence is clear; there is simply no empirical evidence for a global flood.
My conclusion, based on the work of many scientists as well as my own personal investigations is that the story of a global flood did not happen as written in the bible. It is a myth.
Now, what would you have us do? Censor our findings for your convenience? Accept "divine" revelation as empirical evidence? Change how science works?
You criticize science for contradicting your beliefs; perhaps you could examine your beliefs in light of the evidence science has produced.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
