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.
No need to get defensive. If you don't understand, consult a dictionary.
What does you theory do?
Your theory is not exempt from the rules of logic. Your naturalist presuppositions are logically bankrupt. You or any other darwinist on this thread has failed to address the foundational problems and I don't need to guess that it is because you are incapable. If you have any sort of naturalistic explanations for your evolutionary miracles, I would be interested in hearing them.
Music theory has little to say on the origin of air
I think you may be in over your head here. Let me explain. Regarding only one of the materialistic miracles, the existence of matter can only be explained in 3 ways. Two of the three ways defy logic.
Explanation One
1: Matter created it self. I've already explained that self-creation is a logical absurdity. Check any intro-to-philosophy to verify that. It is absurd because something must exist in order for it to create itself.
Explanation Two
2:) Matter has always existed. This is also absurd. We know of no physical laws that allow for anything material in this universe to exist eternally. Even secular cosmologists agree that time began with the Big Bang. If time began with the Big Bang, nothing, therefore, can be eternal. One typically lame objection is that matter came from another universe. If matter came from another universe, then there is a reality outside our universe which is in the favor of the theist. And, it should be pointed out, that the existence of another universe would destroy the materialistic presuppositions necessary for naturalism. Yet another problem with this idea is that assigning the origin of this universe to that of another universe is called an infinite regression which, of course, is also logically absurd and never does deal with the issue of the origin of matter.
Explanation Three
3: The third option is that matter was created. This option is not only logical, it is the best explanation of all and solves the difficulties of the first two explanations. This is the only option that has some evidence in its favor. Unfortunately, evolutionists evidence that supports their worldview and reject evidence that doesn't fit.
ROFL!