SCHRAFINATOR "If we walk into our house after a long day at work, and we see that the door lock was jimmied, all the jewelry and electronics are missing, can we conclude that we were burgled, even though we didn't see it? And, when the crime scene is processed, can we not gather evidence such as fingerprints, tire tracks, footprints, and other evidence left behind by the perpetrator that you would accept as inferred evidence of who did the crime, and perhaps other crimes, if they could be matched?"
I hate to be picky but both sides to this debate can use these types of arguments. I mean, a creationist could then say
"If we are walking along the street and come across a painting, car, building, fence ect ect can we conclude that someone made them even if we didnt see them do it?"
Thats all i wanted to say, i wasnt attacking you shrafinator
its just that i dont think those arguments are valid because pretty much anyone can use them.