Nonsense
"Persistently pointing out your inappropriate personification of science is not criticism or mocking you and you have no basis for attacking me as trying to 'destroy the word science'. You simply misrepresent the truth because it is inconvenient for your argument."
Ridiculous
"Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields propose theories that are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. All of them. Without exception."
Rubbish
"That would be the fallacy of anecdotal evidence."
No.
"Then you haven't looked at the Big Bang, abiogenesis or macroevolution. None of those stand on methodological naturalism, they stand on philosophical naturalism."
Not true.
"My claim of philosophical naturalism is self-evidently true for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution. You charge or methodological naturalism is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it."
No it isn't.
"Unless you prefer to assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and invoke the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
Outrageous.
Nonsense
"Ridiculous"
Ridiculous
"Rubbish"
Rubbish
"No."
Yes
"Not true."
Yes true.
"No it isn't."
Yes it is.
"Outrageous."
Outrageous