A relevant insult is not an ad hominem, an irrelevant insult is.
it is all about whether science demands naturalistic presuppositions in its attempt to define the world,
Well, this is entertaining, at least. Pray tell, what manner of science is it you think you can do regarding metaphysical phenomenon for which there is no tangible physical evidence? What do you think science can operate on, other than evidence? You are aware that being unable to explain something is not an open and shut demonstration that it is a metaphysical phenomenon, right? Maybe not.
life, origins, etc. I say "NO" it does not. And to insist that it does is not "science" at all.
That's utter hogwash. The Big Bang, gradual abiogensis, and the details of the origin of the earth are unexceptional grist for the science mill, just as is plate tectonics, stellar evolution, and the existence of dinosaurs. Just because something happened far in the past doesn't make it automatically a scientificlly inaccessable trespass on metaphysical or theological territory, your pouting about it to the contrary notwithstanding. If there's morphologically coherent evidence we can read as a vector back into the past, that's a science, and not a particularly unusual science, either.
No, it is the POINT and until you can get past a supercilious sneer you will continue to be either dishonest or cognitively deficient in your "answer" like this jewel here......Pray tell, what manner of science is it you think you can do regarding metaphysical phenomenon for which there is no tangible physical evidence? What do you think science can operate on, other than evidence? You are aware that being unable to explain something is not an open and shut demonstration that it is a metaphysical phenomenon, right? Maybe not. This is a textbook case of attacking a straw man. Like I said - it is not about science OBSERVING the basis on which one assumes the "worldview" in which science will be done. To deny that modern science today has a creed of naturalistic uniformitarianism, and an assumption that all scientific models within the cosmos must operate within that assumption -- is to proclaim that the earth is flat. The issue that launched this thread is exhibit 1. You have admitted (quite without grasping the implications, it appears), that science in incapable of making a pronouncement as to whether the universe itself is naturalistic or supernatural, nor whether the supernatural has left any footprints in the natural world. Then in the next breath, you insist that because science can only be concerned with the empirical, that science itself must adopt the presupposition that all its models for origins, life, etc must be done within a naturalistic framework, with an assumption that all events, given enough time, observation and knowledge, will be explainable by "natural" means. This is epistemological hubris, a non-sequiter of staggering dimensions, and (may I say again) NOT SCIENCE.
You should get past all the silly palaver about "Flood geology" and "young earth" and fundamentalists who don't really know what THEY believe, nor what the Bible teaches (as an aside, some wag once stated that in the USA our loyalty to the Bible is matched only by our ignorance of it....never truer than today), nor what the scientific community proclaims. These people, however misinformed (and some of them dishonest as well, it seems), sense the core of the problem, even if they can't articulate it. Modern science holds to naturalistic presuppositions as a tenet of science itself, with the laughable assertion that if it operated within any other construct, science would fly apart as centrifuges would be abandoned for bible reading and we would substitute crystal readings for crystallography (yeah, I know it is old, but the alliteration sounded cool). You people act like some cloister of mideval prelates who threaten fire and damnation and predict absurd calamaties to science itself if the naturalistic community critically examined its presuppositions. Until you cease assuming that you can substitute rhetoric, sneers and threats for answering the question, you will continue to face it. And, until you cease acting as though methodology is in itself grounds for naturalistic presuppositions (the central error you people keep bawling out, like a child who refuses to cease reaching for chocolates after his hand has been slapped), you can continue to "debate" by sneering about comic books and launching ad hominems.