Faith,
Please go back and read
post 93. Every line in your post was a response to somebody else, not to me. I'd really appreciate if you address
what I'm saying,
not what you assume I'm saying.
I know taking on all these posts can be overwhelming, I know I was the 4th reply to the same post, and I know lumping me with other people makes things easier in responding. But I also know that when you take your time with a post, you are willing to address it directly. I'm asking you to do that with me. Are you willing?
In the meantime, there is one thing in your post that I can respond to, as it wasn't addressed in my previous post:
I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.
Faith, my point in post 93 was that YOUR methodology, no matter what you label it, has some advantages and disadvantages. They don't go away because you're doing empirical investigation (and I know you are). They don't go away because you allow your empirical investigation to be falsified (and I see that you do). They are there because your conclusion is not falsifiable.
I didn't say anything about whether that makes you right or wrong. "Right" or "wrong" rests wholly within the conclusion, not within the methodology. So I wouldn't say something so foolish. Like Crash often points out, you could be right.
But you're insisting on calling your methodology science and insisting that it has the same properties as science (i.e. same pros, same cons). THIS is what isn't correct, and THIS is the point I'm talking to you about. By knowing the differences between your methodology and what we call science, we can actually make some headway about why it is that your theories are not accepted within the scientific community. It's more than "evolutionist dogma." The dogma may or not be there, but there's more to it than that. And I find it critically important to understand.
My question is, why are you so stuck on calling your methodology science? The LABEL doesn't change anything for you; your methodology still has the same pros and cons. Redefining the word "science" does what for you?
I'd really love to move forward on this with you Faith. I have no interest in attacking your faith, or in talking about "who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'." I'm interested in discussing methdology with you. That's true whether you insist on redefining "science" or not. I'm a pragmatic, I'm pretty open to stuff like this even. There just has to be a valid pragmatic purpose behind it.
Thanks.
Ben