I don't know of anyone who says it does. With extrapolation, assumptions, and lack of direct observation come potential for error. It's no mystery - it's common sense.

Suppose I observe a car coming to a stop. The initial speed I observe is 27 M.P.H. and the final speed is 0. Can I assume the vehicle used to be traveling 900 M.P.H. or 900 million? I can easily extrapolate such speeds. A safer extrapolation would be 29 or 30. The greater the amount extrapolated, the less certain the conclusion.


I doubt any objective observer would share your opinion.

Let's see... we can take part of a sample, destroy & measure it, and assume the rest of the sample has the same ratio? The part which is actually measured is destroyed, right? When you pile up assumptions, you pile up potential for error.

What's untrue, is any claim that precision and certainty are involved when one is actually discussing the most tenuous and doubtful groups of conclusions readily available.

Of course the assumption that no flood happened is enough to categorized the whole business as rubbish. History, properly conducted, doesn't leave any room for such.