Right after you explain the didactic usefulness of the obfuscation of systematic discontinuities throughout your theory.
I contend that the evos' failure to deal with the origin of matter and the Prime Mover disqualifies them from continued building on a defective foundation. I contend that it is logically impossible to rule out a Creator. Having destroyed the foundation of your theory, it collapsed. Now you want to continue to discuss your discredited theory?
Right after you explain the didactic usefulness of the obfuscation of systematic discontinuities throughout your theory.
Lemme guess... you got a "Word-a-Day" calendar for Christmas? Remember those press conferences after Mike Tyson's handler's got him one. Hee! But to the point I think you were attempting to make, variation, heredity, and reproductive success are the three legs of biology. The mechanisms of each are identifiable and quantifiable, provide a framework for categorizing fossils, justify the use of animal subjects for testing human medical technology, assist geologists in strata identification, and marks the results of comparative genome analysis as more than random noise. What does you theory do?
I contend that the evos' failure to deal with the origin of matter and the Prime Mover disqualifies them from continued building on a defective foundation.
Feel free to contend whatever you wish; your audience is not obligated to agree. Music theory has little to say on the origin of air. Meteorology has little to say on the origin of water. The origin of matter is NOT in the domain of biology.
I contend that it is logically impossible to rule out a Creator.
I agree. It is also impossible to demonstrate the existence of such.
Having destroyed the foundation of your theory, it collapsed. Now you want to continue to discuss your discredited theory?
Hrm, I think I missed that part. You are aware, of course, that saying does not make it so? Tell you what, next time you destroy the theory of evolution, get your special effects guys to rig a couple of firepots, or put a big dramatic chord in the soundtrack so we can better identify it. While you're at it, maybe you could write a spooky "bad guy" theme to play when an evo posts so the lurkers can keep track of the characters.
But back on topic, your contention that the theory of evolution needs to explain the origin of the universe is a pretty silly one. Most off-the-rack creationists only want it to explain the origin of life.
One could just as (illogically) claim the same about the fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, electronics, etc. etc. -- and just as wrongly.
Really, now. Philosophers haven't been sitting around twiddling their thumbs since the death of Aquinas - Hume and Kant quite thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated the gross inadequacies and the total failure of the Prime Mover argument, and did it a century and a half ago, no less.
What was that about a defective foundation?