It has not escaped my notice (or anyone else's, I'm sure) that your debate tactics include deferring questions with tangential questions and dismissing evidence as "dataless." By employing this scheme you avoid providing any definitive position or guidelines of what you regard/discard as "objective/scientific " and what you accept/reject as "myth."<quoted text>
How objective/scientific is it to tag an account as myth without confirming it to be such?
Please state for the record PRECISELY and COMPREHENSIVELY what you believe the Noahic flood was. Please include the extent, scope, severity and impact. This is not a question and is not rhetorical. I am deliberately asking for your statement, not a counter question or rebuttal.