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.
And using empirical evidence to prove the validity of other empirical evidence is different in what way? What is your definition of "independent proof"? How can you get outside the system of empirical proof any more than a Bible believer can get outside the Bible? Where is your proof that empirical evidence is the only acceptable standard? You can't even prove it using empirical means: stand alone science is founded on a belief, not fact.
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.
I agree about the double standard. Believers in the Bible should not resort to material evidence to prove it's validity. Supernaturalism negates the applicability of science to the investigation of the origin of life. And the other side of the double standard is that believers in naturalism should not resort to supernatural evidence for morality and ethics.