Evolution does not disprove God

"Bible is about why not how, thus rightly does not discuss mechanisms, as God created all is the only necessary statement."Wrong. The Bible contains more hows than whys. How did God create the world? First he created heaven and earth. No further explanation needed. He has supreme power so he just did it. Then said "let there be light" and because of his supreme power, there was light. He continued on like this until he made all of the animals. Then, last, he made man by shaping him out of dust and breathing life into him. And it was all done in six days. [1].So we have God, who has supreme power, who makes everything. That's how he did it. Why did he do it? Well that's not in the Bible. How he did it is in the Bible, but not why. The why part is the part that is up for interpretation. So the question becomes, if you have supreme power, why would you waste your time with evolution when you could just follow the procedure described in Genesis and make everything in six days. Pro has not refuted my statement that the Bible was originally written by humans to explain the world. Thus, it is accepted that the original purpose of the Bible was three things that were combined into one: Theology, history, and science. Even if there is doubt that the bible is a science book, there is certainly no doubt that it contains a vast amount of history. We do not take a history book and try to interpret that for a deeper meaning. This first part of Genesis is quite obviously describing a historical process that explained a natural event: how the world came into being. "Jesus gave the church authority over the kingdom of God"Which church? There are so many variations on the Christian religion, all of them claim that they are the right one. I maintain my point from the previous round: We cannot debate the Church's interpretation of the Bible because there are so many interpretations, some interpret six days to mean six days and some say that six days means a billion years. Instead, we must look at the Bible and read it as it was originally intended to be read: history, science and theology.The three things I apparently "mishandled"Number one and number two were used as examples, but because I showed their fallacies, they don't' matter anyway: They are only examples of flawed logic. Number three is a fact that is largely accepted by scholars [2].Instead of defending these arguments, he just steps away from them and says that they are just examples of different interpretations. By doing this, he admits that they are flawed.Next, as a matter of fact I very clearly conceded something in R2 that Pro is only now realizing that I conceded. I quote form R2: "I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created." I conceded in the very beginning that a deity was conducive to the creation of life. I never conceded, however, that a deity was necessary for evolution to occur. So Pro spent all that time arguing over something that I gave him in R2."But first we must take a look at what this drop looks like. In the world where you 1) admit God is conducive to Evolution and then 2) state that if Evolution is true then God of the Bible is false, then you have flat out contradicted yourself. "1. A lie: I did not concede that God is conducive for evolution, I conceded that a deity is conducive for the origin of life. A deity likely created life. That is all I have conceded. 2. Therefore, I did not contradict myself. A deity likely created life, but evolution still directly conflicts with the account that is presented as history in Genesis."So at this point I have one thing left to summarize, in such a manner, that readers will see how magicr COMPLETELY, 100% mishandled the theological debate, his last leg. Therein showing how Evolution and the God of the Bible are indeed compatible."Nope.LogicI concede that truth of language depends on context, but, in Genesis, the context is provided. I never argued "the definition of the word should be the only thing analyzed, for there is no implications from context." Based on the context given in Genesis, we can say that God created the world in six days, etc. as I stated at the beginning of this round."We know when God came incarnate, which I have brought up, through Jesus he only told parables. So even when Jesus, God in person, talked directly to people he did not even talk directly. So how magicr believes that God, through flawed man, spoke directly is bewildering to the logical mind."Another distortion. I do not believe that God spoke through flawed men. I believe that these men wrote the book without the help of God to explain the world, a point that was not contested by Pro. "And I have proved that interps. are not biased since they've been around for thousands of years."The longevity of something does not ensure a lack of bias."If one discounts interpretations then he or she discounts metaphorical, allegorical, mythical truths holistically."I am not discounting interpretations, I am discounting interpretations that distort what is very clearly presented with no need for metaphorical interpretation.Part is wrong, so the whole is wrongNot necessarily, but because the Bible is the original source for God, if we can find numerous fallacies, then the validity of the source as a whole is discounted. Because this is really our only source for God, we must doubt its validity based on the fallacies it contains.With the stop sign/ Einstein example, we are looking at two very unrelated statements. The Bible, however, is all related. If part of the Bible is false, then that can change what happens in the rest of the book. If God did not create the world, then he has no authority to demand worship as creator of the world, which is essential to the Jewish and Christian religions.Conclusion Here is a summary of my entire argument for this debate.1. Identity is who someone is [3]. Who someone is includes what they have done. God's identity includes the action he performed.2. Genesis states very clearly that God created the world in six days and that God created man and woman.3. Evolution has been accepted as true for this debate.4. The theory of evolution states that it would have taken much longer than six days for the present state of life to evolve and that humans evolved from the same common ancestor as the rest of life. 5. Therefore, the God's actions conflict with the accepted theory of evolution. 6. God conflicts with evolution.Thanks to my opponent for this debate.Sources:[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...