The "big bang" is an interesting cosmological model that both arose from, and has been the impetus for, some remarkable discoveries. It seems to me that "throwing in the towel" on Georges Lemaître's hypothesis and declaring off limits any further modifications of it, as well as, presumably, any futher investigations of an expanding universe and its implications, would be a rather bizarre exercise in Medieval retrogression.
Empirical science will show that origins is not in the field of empirical science.
How?
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense, it is simply a logical description of empirical process, not empirical evidence of a phenomena.
I have no idea what this means.
There is a difference between investigation and conclusion.
Right. Look, but don't think.
And yet, you agree that the supernatural is not the business of science, and then you turn around and reprimand me for saying science should not explain the inexplicable.(i.e., supernatural)?
Wait a minute. Science "should not explain the inexplicable?" Why not? And are you suggesting that whatever is currently inexplicable must be supernatural? This is just weird.
All those aspects of science are fine, just as long as your axiom does not dogmatically disqualify empirically qualifiable evidence.
No scientist I am aware of "dogmatically disqualifies empirically qualifiable evidence." Maybe you have an example?
You said my method was too quick to 'throw in the towel' and in fact, the Naturalistic method never 'throws in the towel'. In my opinion, the latter is worse than the former.
I understand. It's "worse" because those doggone scientists keep poking around in those cherished gaps where the supernatural resides. But your demand that Science-Must-Stop-Right-Now is up against human curiosity. I'll put my money on the latter.
If you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you refrain from continued bait-n-switch, strawman and elephant hurling tactics.
I didn't know I was guilty. Heck, I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of what you're saying.
Do you wish to discuss empirically scientific evidence or do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science.
I'll choose evidence. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo is your game. And frankly, if any scientist tried to adhere to your convoluted philosophical rule book, he'd end up in a strait jacket.
"If you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you refrain from continued bait-n-switch, strawman and elephant hurling tactics.""I didn't know I was guilty. Heck, I'm just trying to make heads or tails out of what you're saying.""Do you wish to discuss empirically scientific evidence or do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science.""I'll choose evidence. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo is your game. And frankly, if any scientist tried to adhere to your convoluted philosophical rule book, he'd end up in a strait jacket."