Here is the full quote, first:
Whoever wrote that apparently hasn't seen much of my videos, because I have often argued that men can't claim 100% absolute positive certainty about very much at all.
I can't be 100% positive that there is no God, (for example) but I can say with absolute certainty that the Bible is not his word.
It is also true that creationism is a rejection of scientific methodology, and I give examples to prove the point. There are creationists who are scientists, but when they do science, they're unable to support creationism, and when serve creationism, they reject scientific principles and practice, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process, and requirement that all hypotheses be testable and potentially falsifiable.
For example, science requires that all postulations must be based on indicative evidence, not hearsay, not subjective speculation, not any untestable anecdotal experience, nor any assertions of authority. It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet that is the foundation behind all religious beliefs.
Now, to answer point by point:
Whoever wrote that apparently hasn't seen much of my videos - I have in fact preferred reading the scripts, only claim to have read or partially read what I answer in the AronRa series.
I can't be 100% positive that there is no God, (for example) but I can say with absolute certainty that the Bible is not his word. - You mean you could if you knew with absolute certainty that Evolution and Heliocentrism and "no-God-would-favour-one-creed" and such were the absolute truth.
It is also true that creationism is a rejection of scientific methodology, and I give examples to prove the point. - They give examples that Evolutionists by-pass scientific methodology or more properly elementary methods proper to any research for the truth.
There are creationists who are scientists, but when they do science, they're unable to support creationism - Ah, its only when an amateur like me uses chromosome number genetics to refute evolution of mammals from one common ancestor that we can use science to support creationism? Sorry, but Tasman Walker is doing Geology as a means of supporting Flood Geology.
and when serve creationism, they reject scientific principles and practice - scientific or atheist, now? Let's see:
from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism - which are the atheist principles I am arguing against and which they are arguing against ...
to the peer review process - which is a practise that outside Creationist peer reviews (that refuse to peer review an amateur who is also Geocentric, like me) refuse to peer review Creationists ...
and requirement that all hypotheses be testable and potentially falsifiable. - And Evolutionism is always potentially falsifiable, but only never falsified? You could have fooled me about that ... how do you falsify the claim that Neanderthals breathed an atmosphere containing roughly same account of C14 as ours, if you deny methodologically the use of any document claiming Earth is young enough for that to be feasible?
For example, science requires that all postulations must be based on ... - Do you even know what a postulation is? Postulation: construct a triangle with one right angle. You mean assertions, no doubt.
indicative evidence - How can any assertions be based on indicative evidence unless you have assertions about what evidence is, that are prior to any item of it? For instance?
not hearsay - Fine enough for science, which is about the repeatable, the here and now and everywhere else and always from Creation Sunday to Judgement Day. Less so for history, which is about individual events.
not subjective speculation - How again do you determine what is indicative evidence if you are allowed no subjective speculation? "A does not prove B because it could also be due to C" is obviously speculative, possibly subjective (and certain to be called subjective by some guys) and yet a logical prerequisite for accurately determining what is evidence.
not any untestable anecdotal experience - What do you mean by untestable? If you mean that miracles are "untestable" they are to us, but not to God. That is, we cannot produce them to test them, but God can produce them so some of us can test them.
More people have seen miracles than have walked on the Moon (if there are any of the latter, but supposing there are).
nor any assertions of authority. - Now you rule out peer review, which is a collective assertion of authority about scientific knowledge. In History, as opposed to general science, authority is paramount.
One Richard Carrier says that for Caesar crossing Rubicon, he does not rely on authority but only on physical evidence: but his physical evidence presuppose as a fact from precisely authority that Caesar got from Gaul to Rome with weapons.
It is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet that is the foundation behind all religious beliefs.
Except Christianity and the OT part of Judaism and some parts of Paganism - like memories of the Flood (although garbled) or of historic facts like Hercules and Romulus and Caesar.
But including Evolutionism.
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Octave of Epiphany
Now, for the posts I refer to. The series of AronRa replies will be added as links in top. Here is what I sent AronRa, to which above cited letter is a reply:
"How Science is Done" - "The Test for Credibility"
Here is the reference to Tasman Walker:
Feedback to Tas Walker on Geological Columns
Which links back to his page:
Tas Walker's Biblical Geology
Next question: Do Evolutionists Ever Make Unfalsifiable Claims?
And about my amateurism on chromosome numbers:
Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
And finally, first message - on other blog - of a duo about and mainly against Richard Carrier's Skepticon 5 speech (second being on this blog, internal linking as this message will internally link to others of AronRa series):
somewhere else : History vs Hume