Natural Selection Disproves Theism

Against ConRecall that Con's burden is to show that it's in principle impossible to disprove God by natural selection. That means con supposes that it is impossible for me to show a contradiction between one of God's attributes with a wedge that exists, such as natural selection. Now first, by having the ability to actualize any logical fact, one doesn't mean that square circles are possible. Rather such a thing would be illogical (it contradicts itself) and therefore God would not have this ability, because a square circle isn't a logical fact, it's an illogical notion by definition. Thus asking such a being to make square circles would just be a meaningless question, not some true "test of power limit." Simply, the notion, "square circle" has no content, it is devoid of any meaning simply because a square-circle, by definition, is a logical impossibility. Con is correct in saying that he's not presupposing God's actual existence in order to show that God can make himself indefeasible. But rather that Con is holding such a God as a mere hypothesis. But here we see that Con is actually presupposing instead that God is indefeasible rather than refuting my proof against God via the natural selection wedge! I gave arguments for why God, so defined, is an incoherent idea insofar as natural selection exists and persists. What has Con said against this other than presupposing that this argument fails? Simply this:"The particular attribute that makes the God we are discussing irrefutable is, as stated, that it can actualize any logical fact."But here Con confuses what it means for something to have the capacity to actualize any broadly logical state of affairs (fact). Here, one simply means that for any fact F, if F accords with the laws of logic, then F can be actualizable. Therefore, if facts, as such, do not accord with the laws of logic, then they cannot be actualized by God. This entails that God just can't go around making illogical things logical. That in and of itself would be illogical! But this is where Con's whole cases rests upon, a confusion of logic.I've already said everything there is to say in order to win the debate at hand, however it would be instructive to note the other confusions of Con's case. One such confusion is Con's terminology of God somehow being "above logic" and again, "above morality." Such conceptions of God are misunderstandings of what theologians and a-theologians hold concerning God. For there is at bottom not content in such statements such as, "God is above morality and logic." For what does Con MEAN when he says these statements? How could God, a person, be above moral value rather than just being, by nature, all good? Again, what does Con mean when he says "God is above logic?" How could a personal deity logically be a-logical? It seems therefore that Con is confusing logical law with physical law. But that's absurd, for there are many logical possibilities that aren't physical! (Some may even argue that there are physical possibilities that aren't logical, see Quantum Logic).For Pro(Con has not responded to natural selection contradicting God, but has only attempted to show it's irrelevence given Con's misunderstanding of "logical facts.")ConclusionI thank Con for his response, however it seems that his case against mine is based upon a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be logically actualizable. I've given a clear definition in this round on what that means by way of first-order predicate logic, and so Con must contend with either that definition or move on to a second objection. Either way it seems that this debate is tipped in favor of my argument so far.