Peanut Gallery for the Keys/RAZD Debate

I was waiting for you to say that as I read down the post. Keys has asked for a debate in which the Bible can be considered as evidence, alongside science. If he wants to claim that the world was at some point producing tree rings once a month, and has (obviously) no scientific evidence for this, then he must present Biblical evidence, which is supposed to be counted on an equal footing in this (strange) debate.He needs something like: "And the winters were twelve in one year, and the summers were also twelve" from the bible, and that would count as evidence.Otherwise his claims are unsubstatiated, even under the very liberal rules of this (hilarious) debate.It should be fun!

If you're an interventionist God, you can do anything. That's the problem with the debate. Once magic is allowed, then the laws of the universe can be broken. On such terms, a creationist can always do what nineteenth century young earthers did, and resort to "the devil laid down the bones of the dinosaurs to delude us" type arguments.Keys (Simple) has permission to use the bible as evidence. That means that there's "evidence" for the existence of Satan, "evidence" that miracles happen, and "evidence" for a supremely powerful, omniscient God who can do whatever the hell he wants to.Making decay faster may take a miracle, but on the terms of this debate, so what?

I agree really, with the slight ammendment that adding up all the necessary miracles (and you'll need a calculator!) will tell us something that we already know, and that simple won't like only in the unlikely event of his ceasing to practise the extraordinary levels of self-deception required to hold his beliefs in the first place.What I really meant was that a debate with the bible as evidence cannot technically be won. I didn't want to imply that it's not worth having it.It's interesting to speculate as to whether or not a small part of simple's mind does know he's wrong. I think the answer's yes, otherwise I'd have used the word "ignorance" instead of the phrase "self-deception" above. All creationists of the type who try and argue the case have underlying doubts somewhere. Plus a yawning chasm of fear that the comforting father figure of their childhood indoctrination just might not be there, which is really what it's all about.