There are many situations in which the absence of evidence for X is strong evidence for not-x.saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence.
For example, if the bible's story of Noah's flood were true, then there would have to be
─ a single geological flood layer covering all continents and islands and the ocean floor and not more than ten thousand years old
─ a genetic bottleneck in the genes of all species of land animals, with all the bottlenecks dating to the same date
─ over one billion cubic miles of water more than the water presently on the earth
and the manifest absence of all of those things is an overwhelming demonstration, completely satisfying in scientific and forensic terms, that there was no such flood in reality.─ a genetic bottleneck in the genes of all species of land animals, with all the bottlenecks dating to the same date
─ over one billion cubic miles of water more than the water presently on the earth
There are many good reasons in biology and medicine to be confident that humans have never lived to be 150, let alone 3000 years old. This is a clear case of an extraordinary claim being required to meet a very high standard of demonstration that it's correct. Why would any impartial hearer think it was true?Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence.
Forgive me if I don't now immerse myself in the Uzziah question.