Ridiculous.
"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."
Not true.
"By the way, confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism is ubiquitous. That does not make it correct, however."
False.
"If a methodology can be controlled, it is not a methodology, it is a philosophy."
And your source for this particular definition is?
"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."
Nonsense.
"Truth is not an attack on science unless you are afraid of the truth. In what way are you afraid of the truth?"
Nothing you've said sounds true to me.
"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."
Not true.
"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'."
False.
"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."
Rubbish.
"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."
Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. The only "evidence" comes from your particular interpretations of the Bible.
"You refuse to admit that you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and then immediately commit it again."
It's true that very few people take either you or your arguments seriously. That would not make you necessarily wrong, if you had serious arguments to make. But in all your posts, I've seen not even one.
Ridiculous
"Not true."
Yes true.
"False."
True
"And your source for this particular definition is?"
Back to truth by definition I see.
"Nonsense."
Nonsense
"Nothing you've said sounds true to me."
Fallacy of appeal to personal opinion noted.
"Not true."
Yes true.
"False."
True
"Rubbish."
Rubbish
"Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. The only "evidence" comes from your particular interpretations of the Bible."
Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a billion year old earth. The only 'evidence' comes from your particular interpretation of nature.
"It's true that very few people take either you or your arguments seriously."
Fallacy of argumentum ad populum noted.
"That would not make you necessarily wrong, if you had serious arguments to make. But in all your posts, I've seen not even one."
Fallacy of appeal to personal opinion noted.