Replies

Your evidence has to meet the same standards (peer review, etc.) that is required by scientists when dealing with evolution.

This assumes that the standard you require is somehow of a higher level than faith in scripture. What empirical proof can you provide that empirical proof is the only acceptable standard for testing the validity of various postulated facts? Without some empirical evidence that empirical evidence is the best standard for judging facts, the scientific standard rests on belief and nothing more. At least belief in scripture is internally self consistent. You can't even claim that much for stand alone science if you can't provide empirical proof that empirical proof is valid.

Without some empirical evidence that empirical evidence is the best standard for judging facts, the scientific standard rests on belief and nothing more. At least belief in scripture is internally self consistent.

Empirical proof of the essential identity of Creationism and PostModern-Deconstructionism. Both deny the validity of scientific inquiry and use beliefs as the standard of objectivity.

Belief in which scripture is internally self-consistent? How does one choose which scripture to believe? (Consulting a haruspex would internally consistent by this definition of consistent.

To see the usefulness of empirical evidence, one should study the consequences of the contrapositive.

What empirical proof can you provide that empirical proof is the only acceptable standard for testing the validity of various postulated facts?

Well, logically, a theory or idea (whether creationism or evolution or craterism) must be able to stand up to independent criticism. Anyone is free to hold whatever personal belief they want. However, for those beliefs to have any meaning to other people, they must be able to survive criticism.

At least belief in scripture is internally self consistent.

Using Bible verses to prove the validity of other Bible verses is not a legitimate debating tactic. If you want to prove that the events mentioned in the Bible are true, you have to provide independent proof. Otherwise, it's just a question of faith, not fact.

You can't even claim that much for stand alone science if you can't provide empirical proof that empirical proof is valid.

Creationists want a double standard in this debate- Creationism only needs to be internally consistent with the Bible, while evolution needs to provide hard evidence that survives peer review. You can't have it both ways- either Creation must be subject to independent peer review or evolution need only be internally consistent. Under peer review, creationism loses. Unless, of course, you can provide me independent proof of the existence of Noah's Ark.