Sure you do and honest discussion is something you have not displayed to date. So far, you disappoint me.
"The fact is, there are dozens of scientific methods for establishing the ages of ancient materials, including radiometric dating. Every one of these methods points to older ages than your 6,000 years."
Clearly you don't know the difference between the science and the philosophy behind these 'methods'. Knowing where the method stops and the philosophy begins is critical. You seem unable to make that distinction.
"And whatever else it is, the Bible has never been proved in any way scientific. Indeed, by definition of the words, it cannot be, since "science" at core MEANS natural explanations for physical occurrences. The Bible is all about the Supernatural."
I suppose you must not think archeology a 'science' because there were great archeological discoveries in the 1800's verifying what were previously believed to be 'mythical' Biblical place references.
Then we can read:
Job 26:7, "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing".
Genesis 7:1, telling about the flood says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life...were all the fountains [springs] of the great deep broken up . . . "
Ecclesiastes 1:6 - "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again to its circuits."
Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."
"That's one reason science just can't explain EVERYthing. As soon as some occurrence is beyond the realm of the natural world (i.e., a miracle), it has no scientific explanation, because science doesn't deal with miracles."
Oh sure it does. Dark matter, dark energy, big bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution. There are LOTS of miracles in 'science'.
"Bottom line: your theological arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to speak the language and ideas of science, and of SCIENTISTS."
Bottom line: your philosophical arguments are not scientific, no matter how often you claim they are. If you WISH to be scientific, then you will have to stop confusing PHILOSOPHY and METHOD and begin to THINK for yourself. You have shown no propensity for this, however.
"For example, you could answer a simple scientific question: what exactly is "micro-evolution" and how does it differ from "macro-evolution."
For example, you could stop making the 'a priori' fallacious assumption that philosophical naturalism is true and that your belief in the fallacy of affirming the consequent means that macro-evolution actually exists. That would lead you to understand that answer to a question based in fallacy is no answer at all. You would then, presumably, realize that you cannot assume that fallacy is reality and honestly ask anyone to answer a question based on that assumption. That's what you do and it hasn't been honest since you started it.
The real truth of this matter is that I'm as honest as I know how to be. Your claims otherwise don't change that.
You on the other hand must know full well that every word you write is lie from beginning to end. The reason you know that is because at some point you must have been taught differently, and therefore made a conscious decision to abandon truth in favor of a pack of nonsense.
"Clearly you don't know the difference between the science and the philosophy behind these 'methods'. Knowing where the method stops and the philosophy begins is critical. You seem unable to make that distinction."
Here you're trying to make some kind of distinction between science and philosophy which no reasonable person would agree to. Science is what it is. You may not like it, may not agree with it, but it is still science and you are not. Instead, you are simply trying to impose your theological perspective on science -- nothing wrong with that, except that what you say is not science, it's your religion.
I've said this before: science is not, and cannot be, "ultimate truth," only God is "ultimate truth." Science is simply a disciplined way of looking at the material universe, a method that excludes the Supernatural, and therefore can never be "ultimate truth."
Yes, anyone can and should look at science through their perspective on the Supernatural, but science itself must remain embedded in the natural world. Otherwise, by definition, it's not science.
"Oh sure it does. Dark matter, dark energy, big bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution. There are LOTS of miracles in 'science'."
Here you're just playing dishonest games with words. Sure, I'd say every bit of science is a "miracle of God," but what we're talking about here are miracles of the Bible. By definition those miracles are special acts of God and so have no basis in science.
Finally, we note again the disingenuousness of your responses to the question of micro- versus macro-evolution. First you refuse to recognize the point that science itself says there is no difference, except the time frame. Then you go on and on about how you can't define a word that doesn't exist. But, the very definition anti-evolution is based on making that distinction between micro- and macro- evolution.
You want us to believe there is no "macro-evolution" but you won't tell us what it is that word means. I see nothing honest in that.