It's your thread. You're the one saying that you have proof the flood did not happen. I don't have to prove nothing, other than to show you why the reasoning you present is not proof.
Subduction Zone said scientific theory or testable hypothesis required scientific EVIDENCES to be true. He didn’t say PROOFS.
Proof and evidence are not the same things in science.
Proof is merely a logical or mathematical statement, like a mathematical equation or a formula, or even a constant. Proof only provide abstract logical solution.
Evidence, on the other hand, provide real-world solution, and you have to be able to observe or detect the evidence (detecting it required instrument or device), measure the evidence, quantify it, test it, or any combination of the above.
Regarding to observing and detecting, for instance, when people work with electricity and electronic, we cannot observe what electricity in wires, circuits, transistors, with our see with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our noses, though we could taste with our tongue or feel with touch (I highly don’t recommend the last two).
So how do we safely observe electricity. We used used devices, like the multimeters to measure the current, voltage, power, energy or resistance. Such a device can not only detect the presence of electricity, but safely measure it.
But getting back to proof and evidence.
The difference is, proof is only a statement on logic derived from human reasoning. But what if the person’s mathematical skills are not up to the task, and his equations are faulty or wrong?
Evidence on the other hand, are independent of human reasoning. When a person perform an experiment, then the result (evidence, not proof) will either back his claim or refute it.
Sometimes, the evidences will back up the proof (mathematical equations), but sometimes they don’t.
To give an example, Superstring Theory is not a “scientific theory” despite connotating the word “Theory” in its name. It is not a scientific theory, because it isn’t back up by testable scientific evidences. But Superstring Theory does have proofs, and these are in forms of complex equations.
Superstring Theory falls under the category of “theoretical” physics.
Other theoretical physics, like M-Theory (a subset of String Theory), Multiverse cosmology, etc, have proofs but no empirical evidences.
Theoretical science are actually in hypothetical phase in scientific model, it is a proposed solution that are currently untestable at this stage.
Theoretical physics rely on proofs, thus they relied on solving complex equations, but have no real world solution as in no empirical evidences.
Einstein’s Relativity actually started out being theoretical physics, relying on mathematical solutions and simulation like logical models or representation.
It were other scientists who verified Einstein’s works with repeatable experiments and empirical evidences, which turn his theoretical physics into experimental physics.
It is the scientific evidences that test hypothesis/theory, not some mathematical proofs.
If you can measure, quantify, test or detect/observe the phenomena, then these are evidences, not proof.
In science, there are no such things as “empirical proofs”. The right word to use is evidence, so “empirical evidences” make much more sense.
