Evolution does not disprove God

"I must apologize to my opponent for not being a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, as his argument becomes rather trivial. But I'll arrive back to this." Apology accepted. My argument has not become more trivial. And like Pro, I shall return to his lack of Southern Baptist fundamentalism at a later point in my argument. Round 2 Summary "I did not state, anywhere, Evolution has an absolute need for God's authorship." -Quote from Pro in R2 "I never said there is a need, nothing certain on a immaterial, abstract topic, only plausible." -Quote from R2 "The main message of all these theories and their problems is they need help." -Quote from R1 Obvious contradiction. Note: I was referring to a deity in my argument and he never specifically stated that a deity was needed, but this was his overall argument in round one: "Divine Intelligence is very helpful and conducive, which you have conceded, on the grounds of odds, which was my entire argument." Regardless of whether a deity is needed, or is merely conducive, my general argument still stands. The question is not whether a deity is needed or conducive, but whether a specific supreme deity, described in a specific document, can coexist with evolution. I contend, based on the testimony of this document, that these actions of one are contradictory with the evidence of the other. "Thusands" (as Jwesbruce likes to spell it) of years of theological quarrel ended by Magicr "It is, indeed, unfortunate that I am not a fundamentalist, but that's what happen when an atheist want to debate theology" Not that it is relevant, but I never stated that I am an atheist, in fact my arguments seem to lead to deism rather than atheism. If Genesis 1 is false then God is false My job is not to prove that God is false, but to prove that the ideas about God presented in the Bible conflict with evolution. On a different note, here's something fairly important: We are not debating the God of a specific religious interpretation of the Bible, but rather the God described in the Bible itself. For every example my opponent gives recounting different ways Genesis can be interpreted, I can provide another, opposite example. He claims the Bible is to be interpreted figuratively, not literally. But there are plenty of people who disagree. For example, Southern Baptist fundamentalists (of which my opponent is not one), or these people: http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.creationism.org... I could post more links, but I don't think it is necessary to get my point across: Every religious group, or every person for that matter, has a different way of interpreting the Bible. That is why it would be impossible to debate the God of the Bible as interpreted by whomever we want. In debating the God of the Bible, we must debate God as described in the Bible, not as interpreted by others. What this means is that my opponent's statement: "A wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths," is incredibly important. So according to this argument, everything in the Bible could be false except for the parts about who God is and what he has done. Except the events of the Bible and the actions of God are linked. My opponent argues that the Bible is not a history book. Except that's exactly what it tries to be. Virtually all of Genesis and Exodus contains what claims to be the history of the world and the Israelites. Yet, my opponent insists that this is not a history book. Given that fact, all of these events described could very well be false; a fairytale if you will. And if these events in the Bible are false, then why not the part about God? If the events are a fairytale, then perhaps so is God.Next my opponent points out that humans wrote the Bible. I will not dispute this fact. It is exactly because humans wrote this book that it is open to such fallacy. So if the people who wrote the book got events wrong about history or science, then who is to say that they got the parts about God right? Why only one God? What if they got that wrong? Then the fundamental part of the identity of the God of the Bible has been undermined. So: It is imperative that the Bible be historically and scientifically accurate in order for us to accept that the part about God is accurate. Next, I will refute some of my opponent's statements. "Billions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely." My opponent provides no evidence showing that a day really meant billions of years. Although the term "day" may have been used loosely, there is no way it could have meant billions of years. "Intuitive maybe. But historically speaking, for as long as the church has been organized, church leaders have always debated Genesis 1 and still do today." As I stated above, this debate does not concern itself with a church's interpretation of the Bible, but rather the way the Bible is written itself. Thus, all of his examples regarding interpretations of the Bible do not matter. My opponent has busied himself with showing how the man in the image of God item is full of subtext. Unfortunately, the image of God part is not the most important part. The most important part is that God created man, fully formed. The image of God part shows that he, not evolution, shaped man. The Bible does not say God created single celled organisms who eventually evolved into humans. The Bible says God created man. "Because the Holy Bible is a book of spirituality and theology. Not Biology." We both agree that humans wrote the Bible. Why would humans write the Bible? Because they were trying to explain the world around them. This was their science. Today we would not consider that to be science. Today science is a process where we use observations and evidence to draw conclusions. But back then, this theology was how they explained their world. Theology and science were one thing. So today when we can show that their science was wrong in a variety of ways, evolution being one, why do we still accept their theology, their science.Conclusion In this round I have shown why the Bible must be accurate historically and scientifically in order to justify its God. As I showed in R2, evolution conflicts with the literal reading of Genesis. This literal reading must be used if the God of the Bible is to have any factual worth at all.