So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.
Evolutionists, for instance, will point to genetics, and say, "There ya go", as if the mere existence of genetics was, in and of itself, proof of evolution. But it's not. Genetics is merely the empirical observation that organisms pass on heredity to their descendants, and the subsequent determination through empirical experimentation of the mechanism by which this takes place. However, the fact of heredity and intraspeciation is not, itself, proof for macroevolution, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame that relies on speculations not supported by either laboratory experimentation, nor from substantiating evidences from other fields (i.e. no fossil intermediates, no increase in information-carrying capacity through mutation, etc.)
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.