[angryoldfatman]

And yes, they are incoherent, because they assert, as fact, what cannot be observed or confirmed, namely that: the methodological naturalism of modern science necessitates a corresponding philosophical naturalism -- a.k.a. atheism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAA!!

Your extraordinary claim is the one that is incoherent. You can't prove it.

Evolutionary scientists have proven themselves correct.

And I stopped reading your idiotic textwalls several pages ago, because of your incoherence, have the reading comprehension of a retarded goat, and an REMF besides.

Here is the only type of post you understand:


"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism," [says Cornell biology professor William Provine]. Attempts to join evolution with God are futile, as seen in beliefs that God is simply natural law itself or that God created but now is silent. "Those gods, frankly, are worthless," Provine says. "They don't give life after death, they don't answer prayers, they don't give you foundations for ethics. In fact they give you nothing." - Larry A. Witham.

[BroJoeK]

angryoldfatman: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAA!!
Your extraordinary claim is the one that is incoherent. You can't prove it."

Your words here are the very definition of the term "incoherence".
You assert what cannot be proved, while claiming any denial is "incoherent".

The fact is that modern science -- natural science -- makes reasonable but unprovable assumptions which are certainly necessary for science to work, but are not necessary, indeed are often detrimental, for living human beings.

So your extraordinary efforts to deny such simple truth only confirm the validity of your screen-name, "angryoldfatman".