Who said you had to play it? You chose to of your own free will.
I'm going to remind you of two things which you may have forgotten. First, this is America. I can't force you to do anything. Second, I'm younger than you. When was the last time you played a game that you didn't like with a person not of your family who happened to be significantly younger? That you like to use my sentence structures and replace words indicates that you're enjoying this game. You can stop anytime you like.
If I recall, I was nice enough to reply to a user who claimed that evolution is a religion. I defined religion from the AHD and stated that under that definition, evolution was indeed a religion. Not surprisingly, you took advantage of my statement to thank me for "admitting" that. And, since then, despite a few of my requests, never once have you stated that under the definition I provided, intelligent design and creationism are also religions. You don't need to; your posts implicitly demonstrate that intelligent design is a religion under that definition.
I've gotten what I wanted from you, anyway. I wanted you to admit that intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology is not natural, and you did admit that. Thanks.
Oh, as a last point - assertions that the chromosome is designed do not count as "reasoned arguments." You don't need to say "God did it"; "designed" and "created biology" are tantamount.
For future reference, try to avoid using the term "created." It makes your intelligent design mask peel off ever so slightly.
Sorry, but you didn't get that from me. You merely reserve unto yourself the authority to define what I said in terms that let you claim I said something I didn't. Are you mature enough to understand that's what you're doing?
Last I responded, I explained that mankind is very close to 'intelligently designing' creatures never seen before and asked you if men were 'supernatural'. Obviously you didn't respond and now claim that I 'admitted' that intelligent design is not natural. Now either you claim that men are not intelligent or admit that men are not natural. Creating and designing are clearly 'natural' attributes of men under your own definition. Do you also get to switch definitions around to fit your needs?
"Oh, as a last point - assertions that the chromosome is designed do not count as "reasoned arguments."
Oh, and assertions that chromosomes occurred 'naturally' do count as 'reasoned arguments'? Why would that be?
They are designed alright. The only question is *what* designed them. Mutation and 'natural selection' or an intelligent designer? Are you mature enough to make that admission?
"You don't need to say "God did it"; "designed" and "created biology" are tantamount."
Now see, you're doing it again. Even though I never said anything about a supernatural designer, you reserve the right to define what I do say in terms that let you put it in a little box that says "God did it" so that you can ignore it.
Even though I never said anything of the sort and am talking so far over your head you can't even begin to comprehend it, you are reduced to this game simply because you must preserve your paradigm and this is the only thing you can think of that will allow you to preserve it.
If you will go back and look at the actual ideas presented, I could believe in extraterrestrials coming to earth and creating life and there would be no difference as far as the conversation goes. It's only you projecting the single argument you have (i.e., "God did it") that allows you to ignore what I am actually saying and preserve your belief-paradigm by saying the things you do. It's certainly nothing I have said, but I don't have to say it if you get to define what I do say such that you can claim equivalence with your pre-formed beliefs.
"For future reference, try to avoid using the term "created." It makes your intelligent design mask peel off ever so slightly."
Sorry, the term 'created' is perfectly consistent with intelligent design. Men *create* things and unless you want to admit that men are supernatural creatures, then you are stuck with 'natural' creatures *creating*. It's a consequence of your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism. You can't rationally argue against it.
You're nothing but word games and psycho-projection. Unfortunately, age will not improve your arguments. Even the older naturalists argue the same way. The reason is that there are no rational arguments for a belief in naturalism, only metaphysical ones. Failing to admit that means that word games and psycho-projection are the only resources left.