[[Your interpretation of the evidence disallows any possibility of any evolution having taken place. That leaves all of the fossil evidence that evolution tries to explain left with no apparent explanation. I’m not finding that particularly reasonable.]]
It’s not reasonable to point out problems and impossibilites? Since when? If someone is trying to make an edible cake with nuts nd bolts, is it unreasonable to point out the problems and impossibilites to them? (Not suggesting that the search for answers to TOE is this silly- just using an example)
[[That leaves all of the fossil evidence that evolution tries to explain left with no apparent explanation]]
Why are they trying to explain it? Because they are married to the idea that everythign must have a naturalistic cuasation/origins. If this a priori beleif is wrong, is it more reasonable to just shut up and not bring up the serious problems with hte issue? Insinuating htis means that apparently TOE can’t be criticised by pointing out the scientific evidneces that show it’s wrong?
The scientific method, as currently accepted and practiced doesn't address anything but naturalistic causes and origins. If you want to submit that the scientific method is flawed and needs revised or replaced with something else, we can discuss that but I think it off topic for this thread.