Second, with that question I wasn't requiring anything of the TOE. That is a product of your imagination - it's you telling me what my argument is.
Third, the TOE requires a live universe, that's a given, and in that context the dead universe question is a red herring.
Fourth, all of my discussion in this thread stems from the article "Who Designed the Designer?". It's interesting that evolutionists ask that question when the question of the origin of life is off limits re the TOE. How convenient. That is being dishonest, plain and simple.
Fifth, it is very interesting honest evolutionists are concerned about the origin of life question. (Post 201) That is a whole different attitude than one sees here on this thread.
Finally;
Science marches on no matter what any individual will say. Reality is what it is, and any theory is just that, a theory. The closer the theory corresponds to reality, the more "fact" it contains but it is a mistake to confuse the two.
This is a great statement, and one I totally agree with. Who knows what understanding of life as we observe it, and origin of life, the next XXX years will bring. This is exactly why I find the The Origin-of-Life Prize ® so exciting and interesting.
You prefer to ignore the contradiction your question implies. Evasion noted.
Third, the TOE requires a live universe, that's a given, and in that context the dead universe question is a red herring.
You haven't proven your assertion (TOE requires any such thing.) Chance could have created life, in which case a "live Universe" wouldn't be required. You have no evidence either way.
Fourth, all of my discussion in this thread stems from the article "Who Designed the Designer?".
Begs the Question there was a Designer, or a Designed Designer. No evidence of either.
It's interesting that evolutionists ask that question when the question of the origin of life is off limits re the TOE.
I have never held so. The two questions that cannot be answered is "Where did the Designer come from" or to the contrary, "What went Bang?" Both sides ignore these conundrums. There is no answer. Simply admit it.
How convenient. That is being dishonest, plain and simple.
Only if you mis-characterize the discussion to suit yourself. What is plain and simple is that there is not enough information, evidence, on the subject to know one way or another.