You are criticizing science because it doesn't allow for supernatural intervention. Miracles. Stuff completely outside of, uh, science.
If those things could be tested and verified, they'd be part of science.
You're demanding the impossible, and criticizing it because of your impossible standard. That's completely illogical, but you obviously don't care because you keep replying to me when I've already said that further conversation would be fruitless.
You don't like science and you don't trust it. WE HEARD YOU.
Good response, I counter that I have yet to have someone explain the Noah's ark story. Here is a discrete story that supposedly happened on earth, and there was no supernatural events in it.
I want the creationists to prove it, or to even offer evidence that is reliable and testable, and to be able to answer some questions that must arise if the story is true.
We have to explain evolution (endlessly), but they don't have to explain Noah's ark?
(other than, It was a miracle!!!)
What is illogical is insisting that science can answer the supernatural vs natural question when you yourself say that it is impossible for science to do that.
I know that and you clearly know that, but that doesn't stop all of the naturalists from pretending that naturalistic models are somehow superior because they are 'scientific'.
It is merely my responsibility to continue to point out that science is an inferior arbiter of the truth of supernatural vs natural creation question *because* it is deliberately limited to naturalistic models.
"You don't like science and you don't trust it. WE HEARD YOU."
No, you misrepresent me again. I never said that I didn't like science and I never said that I didn't trust science when it operates within its self-imposed limits. Science is very useful within those limits.
My objection is that people take perfectly good science and pretend that it can do things that it cannot. Like serve as the ultimate arbiter of truth in the supernatural vs natural creation question.
Science simply isn't designed to answer such questions and the proponents of naturalism shouldn't pretend that it can. That is a *completely* different argument than your constant misrepresentation claims.
Therefore, I cannot let you continue to misrepresent what science is and what I am saying about it.