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.
Is this an admission that natural processes, such as evolution, are quite capable of producing the complexity and variety of Earthly organisms? Or are you suggesting that these alien benefactors are less complex than Earth life?
I have always agreed that intelligent design does not have to be supernatural. As usual, you have not specifically mentioned which intelligent design you are talking about. Are you referring to the intelligent design that occurs when I assemble a computer from its constituent parts? Or, is it intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology? To reiterate, I have never claimed that my assembling a computer from parts is not indicative of intelligent design. It certainly is. And, according to your definition of evolution invoking naturalism and intelligent design not invoking naturalism, intelligent design in the context of evolutionary biology includes supernatural explanations.
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’s just as consistent? Meaning that under the accepted definition of evolution - not your definition – evolution has occurred? Please answer this question directly. To expedite your answer, I will say that it is possible that change in allele frequencies of a population over time is the byproduct of intelligent design. It surely could be. But, hey, that happens to be the definition for evolution. And, you and I both agree that many populations have had their allele frequencies change over time. So, just to make sure you haven’t forgotten my question, I will repeat it: Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?
I am merely requesting a direct answer. Just like you've never directly said, "God did it," you've also never directly stated that under the accepted definition of evolution, evolution has occurred. To clarify, I am talking about evolution as fact. The theories of evolution all rest on this fact.
Also, your comment in Post 220, "You like the game now that the shoe is on the other foot?", indicates that you are playing the game even though you don't like it. It baffles me that you choose to continue.