A rant is all that is required to respond to a rant, correct?
And what you were replying to was not a rant.
It made a point. It was a request for a methodology.
This point is strengthened by the passage in your rant where you rave that: "you understand only a contrived method of evaluation called the scientific method, which closes its eyes to reason and its own limitations concerning evidence.".
OK. You think that the scientific method is bad. You say this in reply to Dwise1's reply that you should supply some methodology of your own.
But you do not supply a methodology of your own. You just shout at other people that they're "silly" and "understand nothing".
I too would like to see your methodology. Let us see some single coherent method that would allow us to find out all the facts about the world that you do
not object to, and yet would allow you to be a creationist. It can't be the
scientific method, because we've heard your opinions of
that. It must be something new. And I for one should like to hear it.
Possibly you could offer something of value
Actually, the purpose of this thread is for
you to do that. It's called "The evidence for design and a designer", remember? And you made the OP, remember?
All
I have to do here is to assess whether
you have offered anything of value.
You have not.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.