Thanks for opening this, Rahvin.
LucyTheApe writes:
If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood?
It depends a bit on what "all the way back to Noah" means.
There's a general problem that both the Noah's Ark story, and the Garden of Eden story read like fables. So even the rest of Genesis were shown accurate, that might support the idea that these were accurate renderings of fables from that era, but it wouldn't be persuasive that they were accounts of actual events.
LucyTheApe writes:
If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth.
Well of course I would. However, we know that won't happen. At one time geologists did assume that there might have been such a flood. But, as they looked for evidence, all of the evidence contradicted the idea of a global flood.
LucyTheApe writes:
Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible?
Of course not. That it is in the bible is never reason to reject a hypothesis, just as it isn't reason to accept a hypothesis. Physical evidence is required for such decisions.
™ Version 4.2
