This is not an "inference." Rather, it is "founded" on prior experience.
You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.
You misunderstand my standard. Data must be found in nature or founded upon sufficient authority.
What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book
You assume again. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and in microevolution thereafter. How else could Noah have gotten the entire genepool onto the ark?
Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old and the universe c 14 billion years old as well as rejecting evolution? If so you are rejecting pretty much the whole of science. I ask because anti-evolutionists seem to encompass such a wide spectrum of contradictory beliefs.
Then ...you can't even infer from your own certain knowledge that the rest of the universe outside the room that you are currently in didn't just stop existing.
This is not an "inference." Rather, it is "founded" on prior experience.
You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.
You misunderstand my standard. Data must be found in nature or founded upon sufficient authority.
What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book
You assume again. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and in microevolution thereafter. How else could Noah have gotten the entire genepool onto the ark?
B: Congratulations. You've falsified your favorite Bible story. There is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago. The variation of the human genome requires at least 100,000 years to obtain. Hence, considering the entire "genepool" rules out this particular Biblical tale. Its always amusing when creationist contradict themselves.