The real truth of this matter is that claiming to be 'as honest as I know how to be' doesn't mean much if you don't know how to be honest, now does it? My claims otherwise stand.
"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."
You simply don't possess the critical-thinking skills to understand what I'm telling you is the absolute truth. I used to believe a 'pack of nonsense' when I believed in old-ages and evolution. As I studied that nonsense, I came to the realization that it was a 'pack of nonsense'. Unfortunately, you seem unable to walk that same path.
"Here you're trying to make some kind of distinction between science and philosophy which no reasonable person would agree to."
Ah, so now anyone who tells you something that you don't want to accept isn't 'reasonable'. Wow, the antics you will go through to justify your belief is amazing.
"Science is what it is. You may not like it, may not agree with it, but it is still science and you are not."
Again, the methodology is fine and I love science. Your claim that I do not is merely the fallacy of reverse ad hominem. You do that to maintain your philosophical paradigm.
It is the 'a priori' beliefs of the adherents that makes the difference. Believers in philosophical naturalism will find a philosophically natural answer every time because that's all they can see. Their 'a priori' beliefs blind them to anything else.
"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."
And you are simply imposing our 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.""
I've said this before and will say it again: The men practicing science have absolutely no interest in truth. Their interest is in creating just-so stories based on their 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism.
"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."
Yes, scientists can and do look at science through their perspective of philosophical naturalism, but science itself must avoid engaging in the fallacy of invoking 'a priori' belief as an empirical reference. Otherwise, by definition, it's not 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."
You're the one playing dishonest games with words. You want to limit the discussion to Biblical miracles while ignoring the 'miracles' of philosophical naturalism that you yourself believe. You play lots of games with definitions to maintain your paradigm. Too bad you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize what you're doing.
"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."
Finally, we note again the disingenuousness of your response to my point of micro- vs macro-evolution. First you refuse to recognize the philosophical foundation of science and the use of 'truth by definition'. Then you go on and on about how this definition applies to science and that one to the Bible as you construct a house of cards in your mind. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the philosophical basis of belief in 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."
You want me to believe that there is something called 'macro-evolution' but all you have is a definition that exists only in your mind and you won't admit it. I see nothing honest in that.
First, I disagree with all your mockings of my arguments. But obviously, they make no impression on you, so we're probably finished here. One last attempt to reason:
In all of this "discussion," I've made one main point over and over. By definition, science requires "methodological naturalism," nothing more, nothing less. So, for something to be scientific, it must by definition conform to methodological naturalism. If it does not, then it's not scientific. That's all I've been trying to say.
Yes, anyone including myself, can impose our own theological & religious perspectives on science -- we can, for example view the Universe as entirely teleological. But science itself cannot because teleology is not part of methodological naturalism.
Wikipedia on the various philosophical naturalisms
As an example, if you wish to say the Bible tells us the earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago, and you believe those numbers rather than the findings of science, then I'd have no real problem with what you say. You've identified your belief and the source of it, and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want on the subject. There's nothing dishonest in that.
On the other hand, if you say, "oh no, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather I have 'scientific objections' to the work and findings of hundreds and thousands of scientists, and that's why I believe the earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago." Well, now I have to first ask your credentials and accomplishments as a "scientist," and on learning that you have none, then I'd have to call you what you are: a Big Liar.
Let me suggest what I hope is an appropriate analogy. I don't know your church or your minister, but I'm pretty certain I don't belong to it, and wouldn't buy much of what he/she preaches. So suppose I walk into your church one bright morning, and in the middle of minister's sermon, I stand up and begin giving an alternate sermon. How much are you, sitting in the congregation, going to appreciate my interruptions? Not much, I'd suspect.
On the other hand, suppose that I attend, study hard and graduate from your church's seminary, and then am fortunate to be invited by your minister, to speak on a subject the congregation is vitally interested in. Now how much are you in the congregation going to appreciate my words? Assuming I do a good job, quite a bit more, I'd suppose.
Am I saying science a church? Not at all, but like any church it does have certain doctrines, and methodological-scientific naturalism is one of them.
Why is that hard for you to understand?