[LogicWings]

I still don't understand, exactly what is *my* impossible premise?

Ok, I guess I'm going to have to draw with crayons. You said while castigating someone else to "think out of the box":

*Why* can't the TOE say something about origin of life??

The typical, invariable Creationist challenge to the idea that the TOE could explain the origin of life is the question:

"Then how does evolution explain how life could arise from a dead universe" or other somesuch objections.

So I challenged you to "think outside the box" by explaining what is wrong with that premise.

Do you get it now?

[dynoman]

So in other words evolution depends on having a live universe?

That is something I have heard many many times before.

Will any evolutionist go on record stating the boundries of the TOE are set in stone never, ever, to be changed?

Will any evolutionist go on record stating there will never, ever, be a new theory with boundries taking in both evolution and origin of life?

[dynoman]

So in other words evolution depends on having a live universe?

That is something I have heard many many times before.

Will any evolutionist go on record stating the boundries of the TOE are set in stone never, ever, to be changed?

Will any evolutionist go on record stating there will never, ever, be a new theory with boundries taking in both evolution and origin of life?

[dynoman]

My question;

"*Why* can't the TOE say something about origin of life??"

and my challenge to;

"think out side the box"

have got nothing to do with the question;

"Then how does evolution explain how life could arise from a dead universe"

you preemptively introduced to the discussion to head off a potetial (in your mind) argument I wasn't making and didn't intend to make. That is why that question confused me.

See my previous two posts :-) for where my question and challenge were coming from.