You believe that identifying fallacies and non sequiturs in your thinking and arguments is 'meaningless drivel'. In fact, it is the very source of the problem.
"Theories based on supernatural causes are incompatible with both methodological and philosphical naturalism."
No, origins theories based on supernatural causes are merely in direct opposition to theories based on philosophical naturalism. They are just as consistent as those based on philosophical naturalism, merely opposite.
"You're simply trying to attribute any rejection of those theories exclusively to philosophical naturalism to get around the problems with trying to reconcile them with methodological naturalism and the scientific method. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work."
You're simply insisting that the fallacy of composition and the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism is a logical foundation for assuming that foundation as the basis for origins theories. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work.
You litany of complaints about logical fallacies isn’t covering up your refusal to address methodological naturalism.