Well of course you wouldn't. You think that evolution is scientific and that is unobservable too. The fact that you are unable to recognize that theories must be observable, repeatable and falsifiable to be scientific doesn't mean that everyone must be so.
"Not at all. Kindly remember that you wrote "...it [evolution] just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design." Based on your categorization, you admitted that intelligent design is not natural."
As you know, I said that man is coming close to designing new life forms himself. Now how could intelligent design not be natural if intelligent mankind is about to intelligently-design new life forms? Based on your categorization, you just admitted that mankind is supernatural.
That you are young and think that cutsie word games count as rational debate is becoming more evident.
For a guy who criticizes me for playing “cutsie [sic] word games,” you seem to enjoy them yourself.
Evolution is unobservable? Just because you don’t like the commonly accepted definition of evolution does not render it null. Evolution is, one more time, just for you, change in allele frequencies of a population over time. That has been both observed and tested.
Also, didn’t you previously respond to my acknowledgement that evolutionary theory has been falsified? I am thus confused as to why you included “falsifiable” in the second sentence I quoted above. Perhaps you simply forgot?/p>
Oh, insults and complete disregard for commonly accepted definitions don't count as rational debate, either. Just so we're on the same page.