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.
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.