[TigersEye]

You are putting my statement into a context I did not. Your first reply to me also misquotes what I originally said. Go back to my first post and reread it and see the post I was responding to. Respectfully, until you get on the same page it will be pointless to try and answer your question. The first thing you should notice is that I was talking about what 'belief' is not the 'past' or what constitutes a 'proof' about the past or 'proof' of anything else.

...unless you are arguing that absolutely nothing can be known about the past.

FWIW perhaps you could tell me what it is you know about perception. You percieved my post to have been a challenge to the science of forensic examination when in fact it didn't address that subject in any way shape or form.

[js1138]

I will grant that a belief cannot be debunked.

However, if a belief includes an assertion about physical history, the statement of physical history is subject to forensic investigation.

The question that a geologist or archaeologist would address is not whether a global flood really, really happened, but whether physical evidence supports such an event.

Beliefs that ignore physical evidence are beyond investigation. Arguments that distort evidence or claim physical evidence that does not exist are lies.