3RU7AL

The theory of evolution is based on a hypothesis that is supported by and verified by falsifiable data and logic.

In other words, it's an assumption/interpretation despite it's being qualified as "educated."

So you're not going to address the absurdity of your non sequitur? Or the negative you claimed I inferred? Or your reference of stating a simple fact? That's fine.

Created things are composed of that which is passing. The exist only in a relative sense. They are by nature contingent existences.

The Uncreated is not composed of transient things, it exists in an eternal and absolute sense. It is by nature a non-contingent existence.

You aren't using the term "logically necessary" correctly if you're using modal logic terminology.

Nothing is negative,nothing is positive. 

You can't measure what is bad or what is good, it could be bad to one or good to another

I also would want to dedicate $100 Million of federal funds per year (enough to get 1000 people working for $100,000 per year) towards artificial womb research and development so any women who gets pregnant has the artificial womb option.  If planned parenthood doesn't want to work on that, fine, I would want to make a federally owned company that makes artificial wombs common, effective, safe, and cheap so females who don't want pregnancy can select an artificial womb.

You assume there is an exception here, but that is because you are too lazy to confirm the veracity of what I am saying.

I never said that,

but in WW2 where 10 million more citizens would have died if we didn't bomb them

HAH, warcrimes against Japan and Hitler doesn't count,try again alien.

Im sorry but can you read? I said WOMENS RIGHTS. They are still GOP women senators but GOP doesn't look at gender they look at the characteristics, consverative women tend to value Tradition,family, and religion over politics. How is that bad? Jesus,did you pass the 4th grade. 

Ok, evidence GOP doesn't want women's rights, and no abortion doesn't count because killing isn't a right

Are you mentally deranged? Can you not comprehend that the Democrats were always against the rights of women and minorities. 

It takes a brain and the right chromosomes to be a human being.

Isn't Hamas wanted for warcrimes?

Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.

If you add enough black to white, will it become black?

Humans --that created AI--   have access to greater degree of freedoms/options/factors than AI ever will.

Of course I could be dreaming now...  but life is a bit short to bother with every fanciful idea there is - I don't have much interest in idealism.

Well, Fisher may have or may have not persuaded others, but I did not claim that he persuaded others to change their values. I said he "popularized" natural selection through modern synthesis, spurring the ideological shift (in consensus) from orthogenesis to natural selection.

Why not? you infer all sorts of BS about Hamas as it is.

It's call "the marketplace of ideas".

All the more reason it's subjective, no? 

Are you suggesting that some facts are "objective"?

Where are you getting that? 

Please provide an example from "the bible" that is not nakedly assertortic.

"Assertortic" informs the form of a proposition. Once again, explanatory "power" is contingent on the scope of ones standards. But if you demand an example(s), biblical diets would be one. 

Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logical (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logical (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error).

All arguments are logical. Whether they are sound or fallacious is another matter (Note that when I criticized your argument, I did not characterize it as "illogical," but rather "fallacious.") And once again, you're arguing non sequitur. I did not state creationism was "logical," and/or that evolution was "not logical." Your semantic gymnastics is unwarranted.

If you look at a dictionary, "rational" is a synonym of "logical".

Why are we for umpteenth time arguing over semantics? Rational is "of reason" and logical is "of logic." 

The theory of evolution is based on data and logic.

The theory of evolution is based on an assumption/interpretation of data and logic. 

Science renders provisional conclusions with available data.  When new data is available those conclusions will be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data.

"You 'seem' to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that ['new data'] will at some be 'discovered' and furthermore that it is even necessarily 'discoverable'." 

The uncreated and the created have distinct natures.

Why can't two fundamentally different substances interact?

Doesn't the physical universe operature under certain abstract parameters? Is the physica universe not interacting with these abstract parameters (such as math and logic)?

It is a fallacy misidentification too accuse me of special pleading because I recognize that The Uncreated is of a different physis than created.

You mean to say that dualism is logically incoherent because of the interaction problem, not that it's logically impossible. 

Something is "necessarily true" if the alternative is inconceivable. Dualism is conceivable. Therefore, monism isn't necessarily true.

Hamas sure does from their statements easily googled.

All science is provisional.

Not all of it. Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses are; facts aren't.

The "theory of evolution" only has to be "better" than any competing theories.

Why? It's subjective isn't it?

Both "nothingness" and "the bible" have ZERO predictive or explanatory power.

Incorrect. The Bible has plenty of explanatory "power." It depends on the scope of one's standards.

3ru7al, it is not currently possible for you to find the coherence in what I believe because the faith is constructed in such a way as to be shut off from those who are in a certain frame of mind. You are confounded, but not because what I believe is incoherent.

If "it's all trivial" in your opinion, then why do you even bother engaging?

I never sought to argue the content of evolution (i.e. what is it? functional arguments, etc.) I sought to argue the logic (i.e. the structure, its premises, its conclusions, etc.) Once again, my contention isn't the content of evolution. My contention is that evolution is allegedly more rational. 

God is real..fact

I'm retracting and claim of "randomness" and REPLACING it with a claim of "no detectable or decipherable order or pattern".

"No detectable or decipherable order or pattern" would seem to be an epistemologically defensible claim.

It's not epistemologically defensible because you're still asserting the negative using the lack of evidence toward the affirmation.

That's the reason I specifically worded it as "yet to be discovered."

Consider the possibility that the tools used have yet to become sophisticated enough to render a conclusion on either.

What is the civilian house fallacy?

No,why would you think that

I'd say Hamas launching 3000 rockets into civilian house counts for something maybe.

That doesn't mean cannibalism never happened--there were certainly stories in the American Indian oral history about cannibalistic incidents

Can you read?

Perfection is not the goal of science.

Non sequitur.

Evolution only has to be "better" than nothing (or "the bible").

It's fine if you like the theory of evolution better than "nothing" (or The Bible.) That however does not mean it's more rational.