The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

I would love to contend with you about the evidences for evolution and the Big Bang. They are, however, not part of this discussion. This is because the truth or falsity of evolution has no bearing on the resolution. Firstly, I will respond to your jabs (such as "allegation," "literal," "claims") about YECs. YECs do not interpret the Bible "literally." Rather, YECs interpret the Bible CONTEXTUALLY, which is different from literal. YECs do not allege. There are testable theories on this, which I will not go into. Now I will quote a liberal scholar who believes Genesis is meant to be taken literally. James Barr in a letter to David C.C. Watson: "...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1"11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah"s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."" [1] Yes, I agree that SOME words are metaphorical. Does that make the WHOLE text metaphorical? You are taking things totally out of context. Also, in your view, the "beginning" is all the way to the first humans from the creation of the world. Now that is a long beginning. Was the Flood global? Well, what does the text tell us? It tells us, (see following, it was in prose form) that the waters covered the earth and that all the mountains were covered. That is not compatible with a local flood. You have just elevated nature to the status of divine inspiration. This is known as the "dual revelation theory" [2]. In fact, every time that "nature" and the Bible has clashed, people like Ross have always compromised on the Bible and magnified the nature. This shows clearly which is the more highly regarded. If they were both equally well-regarded, cognitive dissonance would result. In your list of "literal" verses, you cite some things clearly poetical. Note that young-earth creationists do not believe in a "literal" interpretation. Certainly in some cases the word "yom" is interpreted in more than one way. Firstly, is it poetry or prose? Well, [3] the Hebrew Genesis lacks the poetic markers found in Hebrew poems. It is thus logical to conclude that it is not a poem. There is also a different ratio of verbal forms in genesis than in poetry. The grammatical structure is also that of prose as opposed to poetry. Now we can look at the context of Genesis. In all of the six days, they are marked with "evening and morning..." Can one infer from this that it is poetry? I doubt so. So why is there not more YECs? Well, firstly, there has been an increase of YEC scientists. Slow, to be sure. But growing. (You"d notice that if you read YEC literature) Now we will deal with the assertion that YECs believe that God deceptively made the Earth look old. One simple fact. It does NOT look old. It is assumed to be old. Now, even if it were old, that does not make it compatible with the Christian God. In conclusion, I will like to mention several things. The truth/falsity of evolution has nothing to do with its compatibility with the Christian God as revealed in His Word. If it were true, then it directly contradicts the Bible. This is widely recognized. So widely, in fact, that I need not cite this. If it is false, then the Christian God is not contradicted. Either way, evolution and the Christian God can never be reconciled. I know I haven"t responded to the evidence for evolution and long ages, this is not because I concede them, but because I feel they are in no way relevant to the discussion. Just to note, in the future rounds I will take the position that long age is true, and will show why the Bible is incompatible with that. To you. As you have sourced in the argument box, so will I. To keep things fair. 1. http://creation.com... 2. http://creation.com... 3. http://creation.com...; http://creation.com...