We who are Biblical scholars, apprised in prophecy and of many archeological discoveries tend to apply pysically observed data whereas, the secularistic minded members must rely on the more abstract theories, none of which are physically visible by anyone.
Sure Buz.
So when a Bible scholar contends that there were dark and light periods on earth before the sun and moon even existed, what evidence is he relying on? What physically observed data supports that finding?
To practice of science is to take facts and draw the conclusions possible from the facts. Where more than one conclusion is viable from a set of facts, it may turn out that additional facts rule out alternative conclusions. But evidence first and foremost consists of facts.
You just don't seem to be able to get passed this blind spot.
Evidence is not derived from those facts or from theories. Evidence is facts that make it more likely that a proposition is correct and less likely that an alternative is correct. Conclusions and theories are drawn from evidence. The Big Bang theory is not evidence. Evolution and common descent (which for some reason you are mislabeling as biogenesis) are not evidence. They are explanations consistent with the evidence.
And all evidence is empirical. Hebrews 11:1 is poetic license and not a dictionary definition.
Excuses for why there is no evidence also aren't evidence, but perhaps that can be discussed later.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
™ Version 4.2