Good. I was hoping that it would.
((If the question is “Why is it unscientific to believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact?” I think that my answers have everything to do with it. Those are all the possible reasons I can think of, for people calling it “unscientific,” besides the ones that were already given before you asked me that question. Would you like me to go back through the thread and make a list of all the reasons that people have given for calling something “unscientific”?
If you know of any other reasons for calling views “unscientific”, besides the ones that have already been mentioned, I hope you will post them some time.))
First off I should point out that as a matter of
semantics, "the flood" is a myth, a work of
literature, and as such cannot be scientific,
or unscientific any more than a violin or a
sonnet can be.
Now, when a person presents it as fact, a
historical reality, then science can be applied
to falsify /disprove divers concrete claims
that might be msde about said flood.
Of course, it seems most every reader has his
own version of the presumptivr facts presented
in the bible.
And of course too, if you wish to, it is always possible
to find base and ignoble motives for people's statements
about science, or anything else for that matter. Though
I don't know why you would care to.
ETA and btw- in no way does what you think about
made-up motives of others respond to my suggestion
that you thimk about why "noahs ark" is as you put
it, "unscientific".