Now, doggonit, didn't you just tell me, over and over, there's no such thing as "macro-evolution," and that's why you can't even define it? And yet, here you are using that undefinable word. Why is that?
If I were to speak with you about a micro-walk and a macro-walk, then you would instantly know what I mean: micro-walk is a short walk, macro-walk is a long walk, that's all. Regardless of how long the walk, it's all just one foot in front of the other.
Science tells us that's the only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
But, when I ask YOU to define just exactly what YOU mean by "macro-evolution," you refuse, and yet you still want to use that word as a weapon, to trash both me and science in general. How does that work?
"Please, please stop personifying 'science'. It is fallacious to claim that 'science' 'cannot impose theological & religious perspectives on itself' when it is not a person. Especially immediately after you have admitted that adherents can impose their philosophical perspectives on their interpretations. Your thinking is horribly confused."
I don't think I'm a bit confused about this subject, but your words here make no sense. What I said was that WE -- meaning you and I, not science -- are free to impose OUR own philosophical, theological or religious perspectives on whatever naturalistic explanations science comes up with.
Of course, the perfect example is the so-called Big Bang theory. To me this sounds just like an updated version of Genesis, so I see no problem with it at all. But science itself never intended it that way. Science simply held a debate -- one side said the Universe exists forever, the other side said, no, it had a beginning and will end someday. Well, as more and more data accumulated over time, the Big-Bangers seem to have won that debate.
But nothing is cast in stone, so to speak. Perhaps someday the Immortal-Universers will discover something to strengthen their case, and the Big-Bangers will be consigned to the ash-cans of scientific history. You never know...
"You simply commit the fallacy of equivocation by attempting to equate a methodology with the philosophy of naturalism imposed by believers. If you claim that the objections to the Biblical time-frame are methodological, then I have to call you what you are: a Big Liar."
Now let's see, just what was that "scientific evidence" which you presented "proving" the Biblical time-frame of earth created in six days, 6,000 years ago? Silly me, how did I miss that?
"Again, what you preach is philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not translate into macro-evolution without assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
So now, after you've finished defining the scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution, are you going to define for us the technical differences between methodological and philosophical naturalism?
Or, let me put it this way: if I see one of those things laying on the sidewalk, how do I know if it's just a harmless "methodological" or that poisonous "philosophical" naturalistic snake? ;-)
Nope. That's not what I told you. Are you confused again?
"If I were to speak with you about a micro-walk and a macro-walk, then you would instantly know what I mean: micro-walk is a short walk, macro-walk is a long walk, that's all. Regardless of how long the walk, it's all just one foot in front of the other."
Nope, that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"Science tells us that's the only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution."
Again, stop personifying science. Science is not a person. People with philosophical beliefs tell you that's the 'only difference'. Science doesn't tell you anything.
"But, when I ask YOU to define just exactly what YOU mean by "macro-evolution," you refuse, and yet you still want to use that word as a weapon, to trash both me and science in general. How does that work?"
That's not what you asked me. Did you forget?
"I don't think I'm a bit confused about this subject, but your words here make no sense. What I said was that WE -- meaning you and I, not science -- are free to impose OUR own philosophical, theological or religious perspectives on whatever naturalistic explanations science comes up with."
You personified science just above when you wrote, "science tells us". Science doesn't tell us anything. People with philosophical beliefs tell you things based on their 'a priori' philosophical assumptions. You can't understand that apparently.
"Of course, the perfect example is the so-called Big Bang theory. To me this sounds just like an updated version of Genesis, so I see no problem with it at all. But science itself never intended it that way. Science simply held a debate -- one side said the Universe exists forever, the other side said, no, it had a beginning and will end someday. Well, as more and more data accumulated over time, the Big-Bangers seem to have won that debate."
Again, science has no 'self'. It is not a person. It has no intent. Science held no debate. Science has no 'sides' to speak. Those are people with 'a priori' philosophical beliefs doing that. Please stop personifying science while denying you do it.
"Now let's see, just what was that "scientific evidence" which you presented "proving" the Biblical time-frame of earth created in six days, 6,000 years ago? Silly me, how did I miss that?"
You simply prove the equivalence of creation and science. You just don't understand that you do so.
"So now, after you've finished defining the scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution, are you going to define for us the technical differences between methodological and philosophical naturalism?"
Again, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism. Are you unable to recognize that?
"Or, let me put it this way: if I see one of those things laying on the sidewalk, how do I know if it's just a harmless "methodological" or that poisonous "philosophical" naturalistic snake? ;-)"
Snakes can be 'venomous' or 'non-venomous'. They are not 'poisonous'. Your ignorance is astounding.