Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

My opponent suggests that Christian doctrine and (macro)evolution cannot coexist. This is patently false, and I hope to show why. He offers five reasons to back up his claim, so I shall address each of them below. ============== 1. SIX DAYS vs. BILLIONS OF YEARS ======= My opponent is correct that a literal reading of Genesis indicates that humanity existed only a few short days after the beginning of the universe. I fully concede that point. However, note that a literal reading of Genesis is not the only possible reading of Genesis. Only some Christian doctrines, those that are literalist/fundamentalist, claim that Genesis must be taken literally. This supposed contradiction only exists for those doctrines. Doctrines which are unclear on their position about the literalness of Genesis - they are compatible with evolution. I will go a bit further, though. Some Christian doctrines claim that Genesis is, in fact, non-literal, and that Evolution should be regarded as a valid scientific theory. One such doctrine is that of Catholicism, the LARGEST sect of Christianity. That immediately fulfills my burden of proof - my opponent suggests that Christian doctrine is absolutely incompatible with macro-evolution, but I have found at least one instance where they get along quite well. I will not end my round here though, even having proved my side of the resolution. I will continue addressing my opponent's claims. ============== 2. GENESIS vs. SCIENCE: ORDER OF EVENTS ======= First, I would point out that the theory of evolution does not specifically state one order of events. Using the theory of evolution along with other parts of science and some observations, science has concluded that a certain order of events is extremely likely, but that order of events is separate from Evolution. Even so, I will reference the counterpoint to my opponent's first claim. Only if Genesis is taken literally, which is not the case in all Christian doctrines, does this order of events cause any contradiction with science at all. ============== 3. DEATH: SINCE BEGINNING OR SINCE FALL OF MAN ======= First, let me note that Evolution does NOT require death to have existed since the beginning of life. Evolution only requires that the first lifeforms in the long family tree it says we have were able to reproduce. Consider this fringe possibility: a. Lifeforms in the beginning reproduce, with some reproducing more than others due to different genetic code and environmental circumstances. b. Lifeforms with positive genes reproduce more often than those without. c. Humans eventually evolve by this process. d. Fall of man. e. Stuff starts dying. Certainly that is not the order of events science has predicted, but as I noted previously that order of events is not part of evolution. Evolution is merely the process by which things change over generations - it does not necessaarily require that older generations die off. And once again, I'd like to point out the same thing I've pointed out for the previous arguments. A literal reading of Genesis is the only reading where the fall of man has to even be seen as a concrete event, and the order of events in a symbolic Genesis do not have to coincide with the order of events science predicts to have happened. ============== 4. CHRIST'S SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS FOR MAN'S SIN ======= I have several points here. First, Original sin is not the only type of sin. According to ALL Christian doctrines, Jesus did not die on the cross SPECIFICALLY for original sin, or else anyone who sinned after they were born would still go to hell. No, Jesus took upon him ALL the sin of man, not just a hypothetical original sin. Second, note that in a non-literal reading of Genesis, original sin could come from many things - that part of Genesis may even simply be symbolic of the natural wretchedness of the human spirit. My opponent has also suggested that death is the penalty for sin, rather than being a natural process. Unfortunately for my opponent, both can be true. My opponent here is using death in two ways. The death a person suffers naturally is just an ordinary death, one that could lead to heaven, hell, or in some Christian doctrines a few other places. The sort of death that a person suffers as a penalty for sinning is a very different kind of death - it is a spiritual death, an eternal separation from God. That is why it was not sufficient for Jesus simply to die an ordinary death on the cross, then go back to heaven. He actually went to hell, and this is what paid the price for the sin of the world. ============== 5. THE ARK - A FEW THOUSAND YEARS vs. BILLIONS ======= Once again, only a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis requires that the flood was worldwide, killing all animals except those on the Ark. As I've shown already, not all Christian doctrines see Genesis as necessarily literal, and some outright declare it as non-literal (including the biggest sect of Christianity, Catholicism). Also note that even a non-believer in (macro)evolution would believe that all the biodiversity today came just from the animals on the Ark, either by accelerated (micro)evolution or through there being more biodiversity on the Ark than many assume. Neither of those explanations contradict (macro)evolution. Having addressed all supposed contradictions between (macro)evolution and Christian doctrine, and offering a very large example of a Christian doctrine that is indeed compatible with (macro)evolution, I feel I have done all I can this round. Thank you for reading, and good luck to my opponent.