You probably mean pseudoscientific claims? Because if you switch to mainstream science, you'll discover that evidence exists for writings, for some of the historical elements that have been borrowed by the authors, for some of the older tradition some of the authors of the books compiled in the bible they borrowed from, some about ecumenical committees that debated on the canon, the doctrines of their churches, how to interpret the tradition...
Then you'll also discover that real archaeology, informed by geology, does not support myths like universal floods, or that the Israelites were the first people on Earth... The Genesis stories (because there are more than one in the compilation) are obviously non-scientific. We also know that before large monotheist movements polytheism was rampant, so Yaweh was one of many gods, before him there were others. Animism appears to be even older than city-gods in polytheism, and fertility and ancestor cults may have been the first religion, before any large organized religion existed. Before agriculture, around 10k years ago, there was no large organized religion, there were no large cities. But humans just like us, or almost, were there 300k years ago.
You'll also discover that real historians make a distinction between implausible claims and actual historical settings in the Bible and other sacred scripture. For instance, they consider plausible that an influential man, Jesus, lived, understanding that the miracles and much of the attributed words compiled much later also formed with living traditions and what some leaders of the time wanted to be remembered. Scribes were an elite, writing for the elites. The same with ecumenical councils. The same with cult leaders who promote ignorance and profit from the gullibility of their followers.
I'll stop there for now...
