I keep having to explain to science minded skeptics that looking for answers in the Bible from the perspective of science is pointless.
But looking for answers from the perspective of science in the real world in context of claims about the real world, is not.
That a megaflood which covered and killed as good as everything occured in precisely 2370 bc, is a pretty clear claim about physical reality. If this event occured, it should be almost trivial to come up with scientific evidence to support it. As such an event makes LOADS of testable predictions.
And that's exactly how we know that such event never occured. Because these predictions have been tested and each test revealed the exact opposite of the claim.
Just hypothetically speaking, if I could show you scientific "evidence" of a mega-flood at 2370 B.C.E. would that prove without a doubt that such a flood took place?
Scientific evidence doesn't get you as far as "proof" in the mathematical sense.
It can disprove ideas (like it has done with the flood claims), but it can't prove ideas in the same way. It can only support them.
And the fact is, that there is loads of evidence that disproves the account and no evidence at all that supports it.
Ergo, it never happened.
Don't perpetuate the illusion that evidence isn't subject to error, interpretation, or bias
Don't pretend as if this is a reasonable argument to defend an idea that not only has no evidential support at all, but is actually disproven into oblivion by the evidence we have.
It's unreasonable. I could show you possible evidence, the opinion of science, that could be misconstrued or correctly construed as interpretation of such a flood being possible but that evidence I've encountered in my past is at least 40 years old. The very fact that it's no longer pertinent is an indication of science's constant correction thereby nullifying current evidence as well.
The interpretation of evidence in science is an exercise that is scrutinized by scientifica methodology just as much as anything. It really doesn't help your case to pretend that it's all just opinion and arbitrary guesses.
The only reason you're trying to make it sound like it is, is because that is all YOU have: opinion and arbitrary guesses. You like to pretend that science is on the same playing field, but it really really isn't.
When it comes to science and theology all we can realistically say is "This is what we think right now, and that is subject to change. Fallible." In this regard it doesn't matter what science says. The evidence is conjecture.
The difference is that science actually provides you with means to test "what we think right now", while in religion not only is it untestable, it more often then not is seen as herecy / blasphemy / what-have-you to question the central dogma's and doctrines.
Science on the other hand, can actually only work when ideas are challenged, questioned and tested
all the time. It's how it makes progress.