[KMJames]

This is an even sillier objection. Should we also mention that the theory of evolution doesn't adequately explain planetary orbits?

Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?

[furball4paws]

Because, BY DEFINITION, Evolution is the study of the Origin of Species, NOT the Origin of Life. You know it and every other Creationist knows it. Why do you keep spouting things when you KNOW they are bogus?

Now, if you want to have a discussion on the Origin of Life, then post a thread concerning Abiogenesis or the Creation. You will find many who will gladly discuss that with you, and the scientific side will not talk about evolution.

Just because Creation covers everything, doesn't mean that Science must operate the same way.

[Dimensio]

Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?

Defining the scope of evolution isn't a problem. I have to do it frequently when creationists ask how evolution can explain things in cosmology. The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.