Non-scientific evidence

What you are doing, though you might pretend otherwise, is nothing more than religious apologetics--theology in disguise.And as Heinlein noted:

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice, 1984

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Actually, what you seem to be advocating is better described as religious apologetics or creation "science" than real science.When it comes to religious belief, evidence plays no role. Contrary evidence is either ignored, denied, or misrepresented.See most any post by Buzsaw for examples.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

To support my statement, look at the biblical claim of a global flood, which biblical scholars place at about 4,350 years ago.Contrary evidence--that is, evidence that shows the flood did not happen as described--is either ignored, denied, or misrepresented.No amount of scripture quoting will change this one simple problem--the story of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth. But, as I point out, evidence does not matter.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Here is one quick one:Biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago. For deposits of that age you look to soils, not geological formations; bones, not fossils.More precisely, you look for soil deposits that are about 4,350 years old. Fortunately, those are pretty much everywhere. Your backyard is a good place to find soils of that age.And who deals with that time period? Archaeologists for the most part. (Me, for example. And thousands of my colleagues around the world.)And what we have found in dealing with the general time period of 4,350 years ago is continuity--continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, and sedimentation.We would have none of those things if there was a global flood at that time period.What we would have then would be erosional and depositional features. For examples of those, google "channeled scablands" and see what much smaller and much older floods leave behind.So, don't bother telling me about Pangea, the Cambrian explosion, volcanic eruptions, or fossils. If you want to present evidence of a global flood, better make it in the proper time frame.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.