Actually, I don't believe anything you put forth was a theory per the Scientific Method and as you were unable to refute what I posted, I find it interesting that you make this claim. However, I am more than willing to examine this "theory of evolution"; just post it here. I am just a humble sort and know you will afford me this courtesy.
but you then came up with some artificially contrived version of what a theory has to look like.
Once again false, I don't do artificial contrivance. I simply and straightforwardly applied the Scientific Method; so unless you consider the Scientific Method "artificially contrived" you statement is vacuous. I don't interpret it, just apply it.
I determined from your response that you would be unable to accept anything I could present as a scientific theory.
Once again, I believe I was very honest in my willingness to examine any theory you might propose (still haven't seen a theory), and expose it to the rigors of the Scientific Method. Your interpretation of my response was also in error; if you are able to present a valid "theory of evolution" that passes the rigors of the Scientific Method; I will be more than willing to accept it (as I previously stated). In any case, I am more than willing to entertain whatever "theory of evolution" you wish to put forth at this time.
WhiteKnight
As this is a different subject, I have decided to tackle it separately. The "criteria" you speak of is not mine, but is verbatim from the Scientific Method; therefore you are incorrect on the very basics of your statement. If this is untrue, I await your proof of your statement. In other words, your claiming something to be true without a reasonable argument, example or proof, is specious. As you did not offer the aforementioned proof, I can only assume you were incapable and therefore your post is once again, vacuous.
WhiteKnight