[Tares]

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.

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.

[Modernman]

Believers in the Bible should not resort to material evidence to prove it's validity.

Validity of the Bible's teachings as to morality and spirituality need not be based on material evidence. However, if you want to prove the literal truth of Bible stories such as Noah's Ark, you need material evidence for your claims if you want those claims to be any more convincing than, say, the Greek myth of Athena springing fully-grown from Zeus's brow. Without evidence, both those stories are nothing more than myths.

Supernaturalism negates the applicability of science to the investigation of the origin of life.

If you're going from the premise that life was caused a supernatural event, sure. Many do not share your premise, though.

And the other side of the double standard is that believers in naturalism should not resort to supernatural evidence for morality and ethics.

So, you're saying belief in evolution is incompatible with belief in a higher code of morality and ethics?