So, you were confused when you said that evolution invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design? You separated and made a distinction between the two, therefore to you, they are not the same. That’s all I wanted, and I did not expect you to write without a denial.
Last I responded, I explained that mankind is very close to 'intelligently designing' creatures never seen before and asked you if men were 'supernatural'…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?
Can we observe our fellow men creating creatures never seen before? Yes. When our fellow men are creating these novel creatures, are they invoking any divine interventions? No. We see it. It is the byproduct of man’s intelligence. It is not supernatural. As long as the men who are responsible for this new life document their procedures, the process should be replicable. Definitely not supernatural.
I shouldn’t get to switch definitions around to fit my needs. As for you, you seem to enjoy switching definitions. So, I’m not going to ask you to be fair. After all, I don’t want to take candy away from an old man.
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…
I cannot comprehend why an argument that boils down to “God did it” is considered reasoned, which is all you have once we take away the Latinate verbiage.
I also cannot comprehend why a guy refuses to acknowledge that under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time, evolution has occurred.
I cannot comprehend why a guy who refuses to distinguish between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory likes to criticize others for switching definitions.
Last, but certainly not least, I cannot comprehend why an old man voluntarily plays a game and acts like he doesn’t enjoy it but somehow refuses to stop playing.
Indeed, I acknowledge that your words are far over my head1.
No, it means that evolution invokes 'naturalism', which is the metaphysical belief that only natural processes are allowed to extrapolate observations into unobserved events. Intelligent design says that an intelligent agent is responsible for those unobserved events. This does not mean that the intelligent agent must be supernatural. It's not that difficult to understand. You just need ID to be supernatural in order to have an argument, so you interpret everything through that need to preserve your paradigm.
"Can we observe our fellow men creating creatures never seen before? Yes. When our fellow men are creating these novel creatures, are they invoking any divine interventions? No. We see it. It is the byproduct of man’s intelligence. It is not supernatural. As long as the men who are responsible for this new life document their procedures, the process should be replicable. Definitely not supernatural."
That's correct, ergo intelligent design (which is intelligent agents designing new life forms) is not required to be supernatural.
"I shouldn’t get to switch definitions around to fit my needs. As for you, you seem to enjoy switching definitions. So, I’m not going to ask you to be fair. After all, I don’t want to take candy away from an old man."
You just agreed that intelligent design doesn't have to be supernatural. That's all I wanted and I do not expect you to respond without a denial.
"I cannot comprehend why an argument that boils down to “God did it” is considered reasoned, which is all you have once we take away the Latinate verbiage."
As you just admitted, if men create through intelligent design it isn't supernatural, therefore your insistence that intelligent design equates with a supernatural agent has been shown to be incorrect.
"I also cannot comprehend why a guy refuses to acknowledge that under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time, evolution has occurred."
I can explain this as many times as necessary. It's not difficult. The observation that is 'a change in allele frequencies over time' is just as consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is therefore no unique evidence in support of evolution. It is a bait-and-switch tactic where an observation is defined with a word and that word is then extrapoloated to an extreme to 'support' unobserved events which the original observation does not support. Basic deception.
"I cannot comprehend why a guy who refuses to distinguish between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory likes to criticize others for switching definitions."
All I wanted was for you to admit that you are switching definitions, which you have done. That you can't distinguish between 'evolutionary fact' (not uniquely supportive of evolution) and evolutionary theory is not my problem.
"Last, but certainly not least, I cannot comprehend why an old man voluntarily plays a game and acts like he doesn’t enjoy it but somehow refuses to stop playing."
I am not playing a game. You are. I am trying to get you to stop playing the game by pointing it out. That's not the same as playing except, of course, that you claim the right to define it as such so that you can have something to say.
I am giving you reasoned arguments why what you believe is an error and you respond by switching definitions around and playing games. That you choose not to comprehend the truth is painfully obvious. That is not my problem.