That’s all well and good. You’re entitled to your opinion. But the question was: “What’t the upper (or lower) limit of what it’s reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don’t believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.”.
I answered you. The upper limit is as low as their opponent is willing to drag the debate down and the low is as high a road as their opponent is willing to keep the discussion about science.
It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp.
Respect begets respect and vice versa.
Keeping in mind if you’re demanding empirical evidence then be prepared to present your own. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.
Is that "opponent" collective, or individual?
Keeping in mind if you’re demanding empirical evidence then be prepared to present your own. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.
If I'm not proposing any theories, what is it I'm supposed to be providing evidence of? If they've got a theory, I'd like to see the evidence. Do I have to have a competing theory before they'll show it to me?