I note how quick you are to accuse me of "poor thinking skills." But look what you did here: first you made a false accusation against me, then put your own false accusation words into my mouth, accusing me of saying them!
I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them.
Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them.
"What's clear is that you must characterize me as 'condemning' science or you would have to admit that I am correct and you would have nothing to discuss."
If, as you claim, EVERY scientific theory is based on "philosophical naturalism," how could you NOT condemn all of science? Are you now telling us that you support "philosophical naturalism" when it suits you to?
"You support letting the philosophical naturalists present their religious beliefs in public school science class. How can you deny anyone else the same privilege?"
I support the teaching of science in public school science classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as "just another religion" are ludicrous, imho.
By the way, even some public schools do offer courses in religions - theology - philosophies, etc. I have no problem with those at all, and have never known anyone to confuse those subjects with science.
"So, you are back to personifying science again?"
You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer.
"A methodology cannot be controlled."
Can you cite even one example?
"You constantly accuse me of 'attacking' you, science and anything else you want to believe in. "
Your posts are full of false statements about science and false accusations against me. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it.
"Like assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?"
No.
"All truly scientific theories are based on assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution."
So, in what way is your false claim here NOT an attack on all of science? In what way are you not anti-science?
"Retreating back into your 'truth by definition' hideout again? It has nothing to do with reality, despite your valiant attempts to equate it."
Sorry pal, but we can't communicate without words, and words of necessity have definitions. Since you so much enjoy distorting or ignoring word definitions, I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you what certain words mean.
Obviously these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations.
"Let's see. You say you've made no assumptions beyond 'long-term micro-evolution'. Does that mean that you have made an assumption or not?"
I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation aka micro-evolution, beginning when life began and continuing through today. The debate then is, when did it start. For answers you go to the Bible and tell us, "6,000 years ago." Scientists examine natural evidence and tell us "looks like some billions of years."
By the way, your accusations to the effect that scientists started with an old age in mind and then went looking for evidence to support that is simply false. In fact, they started back in the 1800s with young age ideas, then slowly slowly extended their estimates back as new evidence developed.
"What's not disputable is that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are not serious scientists. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality."
Can you prove your claim that the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Can you cite a single work of scientific argument, evidence, or scientist, supporting your claim the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Can you demonstrate in what way your arguments are "methodological naturalism"?
"Again, 'argumentum ad populum' is arguing that a thing is true because x number of people believe it is true."
I have not made such an argument. I have reported such relevant facts as: only a small minority of Christians belong to churches which teach Young Earth Creationism; and no recognized scientific journal has published a peer-reviewed article defending such ideas. These facts don't make your arguments right or wrong, but they do tell us how seriously, or not, most people take them.
Claiming a false accusation does not make it so.
"I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them."
I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them.
"Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them."
Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them.
"If, as you claim, EVERY scientific theory is based on "philosophical naturalism," how could you NOT condemn all of science? Are you now telling us that you support "philosophical naturalism" when it suits you to?"
You continue to make false accusations against me. Pointing out that science is based on philosophical naturalism is not a condemnation of anything, it is simply a fact that you refuse to admit. You need to misrepresent a simple statement of fact as an 'attack' in order to invoke the fallacy of reverse ad hominem. That's quite clear.
"I support the teaching of science in public school science classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as "just another religion" are ludicrous, imho."
You support the teaching of philosophical naturalism in public school philosophical naturalism classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as purely 'methodological naturalism' are ludicrous, imho.
"By the way, even some public schools do offer courses in religions - theology - philosophies, etc. I have no problem with those at all, and have never known anyone to confuse those subjects with science."
By the way, confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism is ubiquitous. That does not make it correct, however.
"You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer."
You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer.
"Can you cite even one example?"
If a methodology can be controlled, it is not a methodology, it is a philosophy.
"Your posts are full of false statements about science and false accusations against me. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it."
That is, of course, your goal. First mischaracterize statements of truth as 'false statements' and 'false accusations' and then call for censorship of the truth. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it.
"No."
Yes.
"So, in what way is your false claim here NOT an attack on all of science? In what way are you not anti-science?"
Truth is not an attack on science unless you are afraid of the truth. In what way are you afraid of the truth?
" Sorry pal, but we can't communicate without words, and words of necessity have definitions. Since you so much enjoy distorting or ignoring word definitions, I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you what certain words mean. Obviously these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations."
Sorry pal, but assigning particular definitions to terms such that your position is 'true by definition' is not the same as communicating using commonly-defined words. It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate simple communication with 'truth by definition'. I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you that 'truth by definition' is not the same as reality. Obviously, these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations.
"I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation aka micro-evolution, beginning when life began and continuing through today. The debate then is, when did it start. For answers you go to the Bible and tell us, "6,000 years ago." Scientists examine natural evidence and tell us "looks like some billions of years.""
I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation cannot get you from non-life to the simplest self-replicating 'life' nor can it get you from the simplest self-replicating 'life' to the diversity we observe. The debate then is, at what level did it start. For answers, you go to the words of men who have an 'a priori' belief in philosophical naturalism and tell you that it was 'billions of years ago'.
"By the way, your accusations to the effect that scientists started with an old age in mind and then went looking for evidence to support that is simply false. In fact, they started back in the 1800s with young age ideas, then slowly slowly extended their estimates back as new evidence developed."
By the way, your accusations to the effect that philosophical naturalism is the result of men with no philosophical beliefs coming to the conclusion of billions of years is simply false. Paganism held that the earth was incredibly old long before the 1800s and you simply refer to the infusion of pagan beliefs into science. That's not reason, that's philosophy.
" Can you prove your claim that the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years old? Can you cite a single work of scientific argument, evidence, or scientist, supporting your claim the earth is only 6,000 years old? Can you demonstrate in what way your arguments are "methodological naturalism"?"
What's clear is that you refuse to answer the charge that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are simply defined by you as 'not serious scientists'. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality.
"I have not made such an argument. I have reported such relevant facts as: only a small minority of Christians belong to churches which teach Young Earth Creationism; and no recognized scientific journal has published a peer-reviewed article defending such ideas. These facts don't make your arguments right or wrong, but they do tell us how seriously, or not, most people take them."
You refuse to admit that you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and then immediately commit it again.