Empirical evidence is physical evidence we can study. We can study the rocks in the Grand Canyon. We can study other canyons. We can study many different kinds of rocks over long periods of time and come up with a body of evidence about what can be learned from those rocks. We can develop better and better methods to study those rocks (i.e. raidometric and cosmogenic dating; detailed microscopy).

Almost half of scientists in the US say they are theists, so I'm not sure how you would justify your "secular atheist evolutionist" comment. And in fact, not all of the evolutionists here are atheists either. Why do you insist on labelling people in such a derrogatory, stereotypical way?

You also seem to be claiming that we can know nothing about the history of the earth or the life on it because we weren't there. Where does that leave forensic science then? Does that invalidate every investigation of a crime scene, because the police weren't there, or do you think there are sometimes clues left behind that we can study?

If you're not careful, people might start to think you're complaining so much about what is acceptable scientific evidence for creationism, because you can't find any.