Informal scientific use of that sense of "evolve" is not related to basic evolution theory.
I believe G*d created the Universe and everything that implies, but just so we're clear: that is a religious & philosophical belief, not a scientific theory.
YHAOS: "The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory.
Do you object to the word “evolve” (in any of its derivations) being used in some other context? Why?"
The word "evolve" is used in endless informal, non-scientific contexts, from evolving fashions, to evolving vehicles, to evolving ideas and even the evolving universe.
None -- not one -- of these informal usages equate to the basic scientific theory of evolution.
So, my only objections would come from any efforts to confuse some informal use with the scientific theory.
YHAOS: "Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot serve as an organizational principle governing the evolutionary process?"
I don't agree with your idea of an organizing principle, whether "randomness" or anything else.
Plus, as others have pointed out here, the term "random" is often used incorrectly, when what is intended is "unpredictable".
"Unpredictable" only means that we can't figure it out, not that it's purely "random".
Furthermore, once you accept that G*d created the Universe, then nothing is truly "random" -- everything happens according to Plan and for a purpose.
Finally, Chaos Theory tells us that even mathematically "random" events are not so "random" when seen from a larger perspective.
So the answer to your double-negative question is: no, meaning yes, I agree.
YHAOS: "Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot cease to be “random,” and actually evolve into “something”?"
I don't think true "randomness" exists in nature.
I do think organic chemistry can and will under the right circumstance naturally grow more complex, and suspect this could eventually lead to organic chemistry complex enough to be labeled "lifelike".
But no such hypothesis has ever been confirmed.
YHAOS: "Can you state, without equivocation, that the purpose of “Evolution” is to achieve “reproductive fitness”?"
Silly YHAOS -- have you yet learned nothing?
There is no teleological "purpose" in science, only mechanistic relationships.
Mechanistically, evolution does achieve "reproductive fitness", but for any idea of "purpose", you have to look to G*d, and ask Him, FRiend.
YHAOS: "Can you state, without equivocation, that Man is a “vicious predatory animal”? Why?"
No, far from it, except certain criminal mind-sets.
But other similar words (i.e., "effective hunter-gatherers") certainly do describe our ancient ancestors.
YHAOS: "It is at this point that Miz boop observes that “dogmatic, bitter-ender, materialist” Darwinists and “thoughtful” Christians cannot see “eye-to-eye” because they do not even stand on the same “ground of Being.”
Do you agree or disagree?"
Disagree.
YHAOS: "Miz boop goes on to observe that Christians (and I would add Judeo-Christians) do not believe the universe is a random development.
Do you agree? Disagree?"
Agree.
YHAOS: "She states further that, “What I find truly fascinating is that recent findings in scientific physical cosmology seem to corroborate God's statements in Genesis 1.”
Agree or disagree? Why?"
Agree, but I would not pin any hopes on the idea that science will eventually end up where Genesis begins.
That's because our Creator G*d is not a matter of scientific theory, but rather of religious understanding and faith.
Always was, always will be in this world, FRiends.
Just so we’re clear; that’s been my point from the beginning . . . and that Dawkins, his many acolytes, and many of his colleagues, claim that the Judeo-Christian Tradition must give way to anything Science might wish to assert on any subject. Hence, my question; Why do you continue to tell me what you already know I know?
“Silly YHAOS -- have you yet learned nothing?”
Nothing from you. A great deal from boop and Alamo-Girl (and others), who explain things far better than you (and without the fog of disinformation you mix with your attempts at a/disa greements).
“No, (to the question if Man is a “vicious predatory animal”) far from it, except certain criminal mind-sets.”
Exception noted. Aside from your exception, how do “other similar words,” such as “effective hunter-gatherers” equate with “vicious predatory animal”?
(And that, boys & girls, is how it’s done. That is how one says “yes” by saying “no”)
I await with interest how Miz boop answers your response (should she choose to do so). And/or others.
One other issue:
In post #200, this thread, you allege no new quotes since February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?, FR, and you set the standard for “new quotes” to be four year’s (or less). Prove what you allege.