Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The unrefuted argument for creationism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chris B" data-source="post: 69190447" data-attributes="member: 374164"><p>No.</p><p></p><p>I'm saying that the implied argument</p><p>(the kid denying he has eaten chocolate, given the surviving evidence is as silly as</p><p>people denying a Creator, given the massive amount of surviving evidence)</p><p>is an argument by picture. There's definitely chocolate.</p><p></p><p>But that picture and parallel has been carefully selected.</p><p>If it were a kid with some blood on his forehead, a singular *agent* or type of event could not so safely be inferred, An event there must have been, the forehead blood being evidence enough for that, but the inferred parallel to "so it must have needed a creator" is lost. Lots of different causes could lie behind the clear evidence.</p><p></p><p>I think the evidence that can be drawn from the observed universe is far more analogous to that image.</p><p></p><p></p><p>(Still not spotted the original spelling error? )</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chris B, post: 69190447, member: 374164"] No. I'm saying that the implied argument (the kid denying he has eaten chocolate, given the surviving evidence is as silly as people denying a Creator, given the massive amount of surviving evidence) is an argument by picture. There's definitely chocolate. But that picture and parallel has been carefully selected. If it were a kid with some blood on his forehead, a singular *agent* or type of event could not so safely be inferred, An event there must have been, the forehead blood being evidence enough for that, but the inferred parallel to "so it must have needed a creator" is lost. Lots of different causes could lie behind the clear evidence. I think the evidence that can be drawn from the observed universe is far more analogous to that image. (Still not spotted the original spelling error? ) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The unrefuted argument for creationism
Top
Bottom