The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Mister Agenda]

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?

We could, if there were no examples of specifically complex operating systems that don't require creative agents, but our disagreement is that biologists think we have such examples and you don't. However, my point was more along the lines of having only one example of a universe whose origin we don't fully understand, in induction, if we had many universes made by creative agents, we could induce that this one is, too.

How so? The form is valid.

It's an informal fallacy. The form is valid, but the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. And it reminds me of this:

If I am rich, I am Bill Gates.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

Which doesn't seem right, does it?

Affirming the consequent. I was agreeing with you silly.

My bad, thanks for clarifying.

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

And you were right to do so, thanks again.

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

That makes at least two of us!

---

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven.

And if it is, how will that affect your opinions on biological evolution vs. creationism?