You are now setting an impossible standard. Based on your standard, there was no Jewish holocost, Abraham Lincoln was never the president of the United States, etc.
Indirect and circumstantial evidence is just as valid as any other kind of evidence. Direct evidence is sometimes the worst; such as eyewitness accounts, which can be completely unreliable.
Do you believe in evolution? There is certainly no actual evidence for it.
The truth is that there is no evidence against it. While your claim is repeatedly made on these threads, no one has yet offered their evidence.
Do you have a billion year old human fossil? Maybe a lizard?
One of the great accomplishments of evolutionary biology is that the theory is supported by genomics. The objects of genomics weren't even discovered until 100 years after Darwin's proposal.
Yet where are ID's accomplishments? What stirring new discoveries has it led to? It's been around since Darwin proposed 150 years ago as well.
All ID has done so far is take researchers away from work for cures on diseases and sent them searching for the components of flagella. Who has been helped so far by proving that flagella are not "irreducibly complex"?
You are now setting an impossible standard. Based on your standard, there was no Jewish holocost, Abraham Lincoln was never the president of the United States, etc.
That's absurd. I never said that we must witness events to know that they happened. I only said that shared belief in a thing does not make that thing true.
There is plenty of objective evidence to support the Holocaust. There is plenty of objective evidence that Lincoln was President of the United States. Unbiased evidence from uninvolved sources. Physical evidence.
Indirect and circumstantial evidence is just as valid as any other kind of evidence. Direct evidence is sometimes the worst; such as eyewitness accounts, which can be completely unreliable.
I agree - eyewitness testimony is just about worthless. That was one of my original points, after all.
Do you believe in evolution? There is certainly no actual evidence for it.
Silly creationist canard, as bold as it is false. There is plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution, or it wouldn't be a "theory". We don't have to have witnessed it to see evidence for it. Just as I didn't have to personally see Lincoln in office to know that he was the President.
There is plenty of objective evidence to support the Holocaust. There is plenty of objective evidence that Lincoln was President of the United States. There is plenty of objective evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. So far, the only evidence offered to support Christ's resurrection is unreliable eyewitness testimony, records written by his followers and the notion that "if enough people believe it, hey - it must be true."
Don't get me wrong - I'm in no way belittling anyone's belief. I'm only concerned when people start to confuse their personal faith with scientific evidence.