So, now you don't know the difference? Reaching for straws, I see. Is God natural? Is God subject to natural laws? Is God part of the existing world? Are you still not sure?
I think some clarity is required here, before you accuse me of fraudulently "peddling 'intelligent design' as 'science.'"
This is out of context with my response in #217. There was nothing personal in it. Good try bb. More straws to grab.
BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays
Fine, please tell us what do you identify with?
It's often easier to impugn and "disqualify" an opponent than it is to answer his arguments
That was exactly what I walked away from in our last thread.
Ad hominum attack is a most useful way to avoid substantive discussions on the merits:
I am glad you realize that, bb, except that it is pointless to discuss "substantive merits" with supernatural things being presented as "facts."
Rather, you persist in tarring me as a strawman builder, and then start asking me a bunch of questions that I can't answer until or unless you tell me what YOU mean by "natural" and "supernatural." After all, to answer you, I am tasked with finding the language that you would understand. So I need to understand your understanding. Sigh....
I mean, if we can't agree on what we're even talking about, then what's the point of having this discussion? We just keep going 'round and 'round pointlessly, and I'm getting pretty tired of it.