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.
You fear science.
Unless you can get everyone to agree that it gets trumped by whatever miracles you believe occur, it's one scary line of human inquiry.
Unless we can all agree that God created a world 6,000 years ago that appears to be billions of years old, and that He tricked the scientists, and will continue to trick them in the future, then to hell with science.
Science is completely incapable of dealing with magical acts, that is true.
You prefer magic. You believe in magic. Magic is more important than testable reality. Your belief is more important than the Super Bowl.
WE HEARD YOU.