My root position is that life is given, and that evolution is a non-starter...
There's your problem, sport: your premise rules out any conclusion other than the one you already have.
remember those dice, they needed someone to roll them in the first place.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
If evolution is completely indifferent to morality (indeed, it doesn't care that it doesn't even care) then why has it gone on produce creatures (us at least) that do!
If that were true non human animals would not care for their young. This obviously happens so where does that leave your assertion that evolution cannot produce creatures who care for others?
Welcome to EvC, by the way.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
™ Version 4.2
