That's exactly why I said, "What you mean is that there is no evidence that you will accept under methodological naturalism." That's what you are claiming now, so don't say 'no'. That's exactly what you say you will do. I believe you and knew that before you admitted it.
"The reality is that you can say that I'm wrong all you want, but the burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that I am wrong to substantiate your accusation of fallacy."
I have substantiated my accusation of fallacy. Macroevolution is based on the assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is so because it assumes that observed processes (Q) can be extrapolated back into unobserved, assumed time frames and support macroevolution (P). There is no way to actually observe macroevolution, it must be inferred and that is done by fallacy.
"My position happens to be scientifically supported. Sure, as science goes that may change, but until there is documentation your assertion, and thus your whole argument, is just so much BS."
To say your position is 'scientifically supported' when that science is based on fallacy is meaningless. Sure, science *will* (not may) change but the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism will never change. That is the fallacy. Your whole argument is based on a fallacy.
"The real tragedy here isn't the disagreement, it's your inability to reason your way out of the tiny little corner you've backed yourself into with your nonsensical position."
The real tragedy here isn't the disagreement, it's your inability to reason your way out of the tiny little corner you've backed yourself into with your refusal to recognize philosophical naturalism.
"All you are capable of doing is responding to legitimate opposition with "fallacy," "fallacy," "fallacy," because you refuse to (or are incapable of) understanding opposing positions."
All you are capable of doing is responding to legitimate opposition with "no fallacy", "no fallacy", "no fallacy", because you refuse to (or are incapable of) understanding opposing positions.
"I've rejected creationism rationally. I've seen the "evidence" and "theories" that have been put forth and reject them based on reason, logic and science."
I've rejected philosophical naturalism rationally. I've seen the "evidence" and "theories" that have been put forth and reject them based on reason and logic. I avoid the fallacy of 'science' to avoid engaging in logical fallacy as you do.
"You, on the other hand, look at the evidence and science behind evolution and reject it dogmatically without ever really considering it and almost certainly without understanding it. That is nothing short of pathetically sad."
You, on the other hand, look at the evidence, assume the philosophy of naturalism that is behind evolution 'a priori' and assume it dogmatically without ever really considering the fallacy it is based on and almost certainly without understanding.
That is nothing short of pathetically sad.
"I also refuse to admit that the moon is made of green cheese because it is, in fact, not."
That would be the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.