[donh]

I never even accepted your premise that there's any kind of meaningful distinction between artificial and "supernatural". You're the one who brought it up, not I. It's up to you to explain what you're talking about.

This is from just previous on this thread:

aphid evolution is natural, but dog evolution is not?

Same way that an anthill is natural, but the Pentagon is not.

So...apparently, since, as you say, you don't accept the premise that "there is any meaningful distinction between artificial and supernatural" you think the pentagon and dogs came about from supernatural design.

Is there some form of design that is neither natural nor supernatural?

Or is it simply that you're enjoying leading the dopey evolutionists who gullibly continue to take you at face value for a ride?

[inquest]

So...apparently, since, as you say, you don't accept the premise that "there is any meaningful distinction between artificial and supernatural" you think the pentagon and dogs came about from supernatural design.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not they did, from a scientific perspective, because "supernatural" is a scientifically meaningless term. It's just a strawman you use to argue against ID, as a substitute for a real argument.