The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Statler Waldorf]

In inductive reasoning, we reason from details to generalities. The path from 'the universe exists' to 'God made it' is not inducively valid.

Why not? You do not believe that we can inductively infer that specifically complex operating systems require creative agents?

And begging the question.

How so? The form is valid.

Please enlighten me as to which formal fallacy committed. It's only polite to specify.

Affirming the consequent. I was agreeing with you silly.

For the purposes of the example, it does not matter whether the premise is true, it matters whether the conclusion follows.

This is true; however I wanted to clarify so people do not think that Ken Ham is a felon.

But P1 WAS a mistake on my part, I was actually thinking of Kent Hovind, thanks for catching that. P2 is also false, thankfully!

I suspected that was who you were thinking of; I am glad you are not a felon.