This is silly. I don't know how many different ways you can say that science is inadequate while denying the fundamental assertion of your comments.
I'm through representing or misrepresenting your position. People can read and judge for themselves.
Actually, I am interested in how many ways you can avoid addressing what I am actually saying; that science is, by definition, unable to sit as the ultimate arbiter of truth because of its self-imposed requirement of naturalism.
"I'm through representing or misrepresenting your position. People can read and judge for themselves."
You mean you aren't going to address a 'scientific' theory that is 96% imaginary?
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-03/cover/
At what point, exactly, does 'science' simply admit that it doesn't have a clue? 99.9999% ???