Where have you been? I have consistently from day one to the present been driving for empirical evidence in everything. The desired/required evidence, however, just isn't always obtainable.<quoted text>
So, you WOULD seek empirical evidence.
You refuse to admit that's what you would do, because it puts the lie to your whole "flood must be true" narrative.
Of course, I could pull the old Christian trick of, "if you believe it exists, you'll be able to see it, but if you don't believe it exists, you won't be able to see it." Fact is, though, you're still asking for empirical evidence. You're too intellectually cowardly to admit that's what you're saying, because you can't bear to backtrack and admit your previous error in reasoning for accepting the Bible story as true. Wouldn't it be good to be honest with us and yourself, instead of having to do all these linguistic handsprings to avoid the truth? The short-term cognitive dissonance is nothing compared to the long-term lie under which you force yourself to live by avoiding the dissonance. Man up. Honest people admit when they've erred. Dishonest people look for every possible way to avoid that admission.
Ironically, among humans, linguistics is the means of choice for conveying the truth. It pays to be good at it.
BTW, have you erred?