You still haven't pointed out where I have supported metaphysical naturalism. This even started when I said science shouldn't lay claim to "truth," which is what metaphysical naturalism does, supposing to know the truth about the supernatural.
like intrinsic properties of astronomical objects. You don't know that it is the same phenomenon in both cases
But you haven't put forth a better scientific explanation. The expanding universe model fits better than the others. You need to come up with a good reason other than "maybe it has an intrinsic property of being blue."
I am absolutely willing to throw out the expanding universe model if something better comes along. I've also volunteered here on FR to be the one who comes forth with science disproving evolutionary theory. This is because I know two things: 1) science is improved when newer, better theories replace old ones, and 2) I'd be rich and famous.
I already explained this.
"But you haven't put forth a better scientific explanation. The expanding universe model fits better than the others. You need to come up with a good reason other than "maybe it has an intrinsic property of being blue."
I already gave you all the information you need to answer this one too.
"I am absolutely willing to throw out the expanding universe model if something better comes along. I've also volunteered here on FR to be the one who comes forth with science disproving evolutionary theory. This is because I know two things: 1) science is improved when newer, better theories replace old ones, and 2) I'd be rich and famous."
You don't seem capable of understanding what I've been telling you.
Maybe some other time...