There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

To me the global flood is one of the prime examples.The lengths some folks go to try to support their belief in the flood are ridiculous.

In your long post, above, you glossed over perhaps the biggest testable event of all: the purported global flood about 4,350 years ago.Can you provide, in a succinct post, the evidence you consider scientific supporting this purported event?

---

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

I challenge you to document this.You claim "scholars have always known that evolution is false." Which scholars? More than two? What percent? The way you write this you imply that all scholars agree on this and that they are breaking the news to somebody gradually, then more forcefully.By the way, perhaps we should use the term "scientists" instead of "scholars." Theologians can be scholars, but one can only be a scientist by adhering to the scientific method. That means the creation "scientists" who are doing religious apologetics instead of science can't accurately be called scientists, while they certainly can be considered scholars. So are you using "scholars" to mean "scientists" in an effort to fool us, or was that a simple mistake?You claim "the Bible and its major claims are true." The purported global flood at about 4,350 years ago has been shown not to have happened. The age of the earth has been shown to be far in excess of what many Biblical scholars claim. There are two major claims that have been shown to be untrue.Now, it is your turn to provide some scientific evidence -- this is the Science Forum, after all. You are citing what scholars/scientists think, now lets see the evidence.(And, please note tagline.)

---

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

That specimen is more than 70 million years old. That is hardly evidence that dinosaurs existed thousands of years ago.But let's just suppose that dinosaurs did exist thousands of years ago. Where are the bones? We have bones of mammoths and mastodons, and all manner of other late Pleistocene fauna that go back tens of thousands of years, but no dinosaur bones. You would think a few would still be around in archaeological sites, but they're not there.They are imbedded in geological formations where they belong, not in the soils! Sorry, that AiG article is so full of holes its laughable. You don't actually believe that stuff, do you?Just one of the many problems with a global flood: there is no evidence in the archaeological record of such a flood. And that is where you should be looking, not in the geological record! The flood is placed by biblical experts somewhere around 4,350 years ago. If you want evidence of that time period you look to archaeological sites and sedimentology, not geology! And guess what, archaeologists don't find a record of a flood at that time period. Rather, they find continuity of fauna and flora, human cultures, DNA, stratigraphy, etc.Face it, the global flood is a religious belief that is flatly contradicted by science no matter how creationists choose to twist and misinterpret the data.

---

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

Science shows that the "global flood" which biblical scholars place around 4,350 years ago, did not happen.Likewise, the genetic bottleneck which would have resulted by reducing the human population to eight individuals at that same time never happened.The story of the "global flood" is a glaring falsehood if there ever was one.

---

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

This is explained quite well by other posters. It was mentioned by another poster that "most scientists" shouldn't be considered here, only geologists. I disagree. The scientists who should have the opinion here are archaeologists and sedimentologists (soils experts).But you are clearly wrong that most scientists place the flood at least 8,000 years ago because science has failed to find evidence for the flood at all! The few scientists who do find evidence are, not surprisingly, bible literalists who will see evidence whether it is there or not. The opinions of bible literalists can't be trusted in science.But the evidence against the global flood at the date most often suggested by biblical scholars, 4,350 years ago, or even at 8,000 years ago, is overwhelming.If there had been such a flood you would have evidence for it in your back yard; so would everyone else. There would be erosional and depositional evidence everywhere! But archaeologists and sedimentologists have poked into the ground pretty much everywhere in the world in have failed to find that evidence.They do find other evidence of floods, however. In the Pacific Northwest, at the end of the last ice age, a series of ice dams around the Idaho panhandle backed water east into Montana. When those dams broke the resulting floods scoured major parts of southern and eastern Washington. Those floods can be tracked and dated reasonable well. Why can't a more recent flood be found as easily? Or at all?Because it didn't happen! The idea of a global flood a few thousand years ago is a religious belief not an actual event that has been confirmed by science. Unlike religion, science uses evidence to differentiate between the "fors and againsts." Not all ideas or claims have equal evidence supporting them, and some ideas can be readily disproved (falsified) and discarded. The idea of a global flood was examined by science, and was discarded by the early 1800s.(ps. I have been doing archaeology for nearly 40 years, so I have some experience to bring to bear on this question.)

---

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

Sure.It was geologists who originally studied all earth-related subjects, before our modern era of specialization.And none of those many specialists you mentioned have found evidence of a global flood in the last 10,000 years.Odd that that evidence can only be found by those who are also bible literalists, eh?

---

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

Going to play "Its over there!" eh? Any date that scientists check is always the wrong date because--"Its over there!"Sorry, that doesn't work. The approximate date I cited for the flood is not from some "unnamed 'scientists'" but from biblical scholars. Here is what I base the approximately 4,350 year date on:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

​

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

​

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

​

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

​

2500 BC -- Biblical Chronology

​

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

​

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

​

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

​

As for the rest of your comments, all you are suggesting is that we rewrite all of the laws of nature so you can shoehorn your supposed flood in there somewhere.How about coming up with some positive evidence for all of these claims, instead of just playing "Its over there" whenever scientists disprove one claim after the other?Or you could just admit that the idea of a global flood as contained in the bible is a religious belief and didn't actually happen that way.

---

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