Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

I will just respond to his points. My argument about using the foolish things to shame the wise stands. If God's Word says one thing, but modern science says another, it is God's Word that should be believed. If God created everything in six days, but modern science says it took much longer, then I think we can take God's word over our own. He was actually there. After all, if God really didn't mean six literal days, then how long would each day be? Were they all the same exact amount of time? These questions have no answer unless you look at the passage of Genesis 1 literally. There's no way to know otherwise. The only way to read Genesis 1 as anything other than literal is to look at outside sources, not to consider the passage in its own context. The resolution is not negated given his choices. My position is more reasonable because I'm taking the word of the One who created the universe over his. The Scriptures also tell us that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). Yet using the Contender's logic we should reject Christ on the cross because it is more reasonable to believe that Jesus really wasn't the Messiah. Believe that God created the universe in six days (as He said He did) with the appearance of age seems much more reasonable to me than to read into the text something it just doesn't say. I can see how you would draw the conclusion that there is precedent for not taking the Genesis account literal. However, if you take the text alone there is really no reason to doubt that it should be taken literal. There is nothing in the text to indicate that certain parts are literal and certain parts are figurative. It all reads as one long, historical narrative. Contention One: The Language UsedMy contention is not ad hoc. It is completely supported in Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). The book of Revelation is inspired of God, just as the book of Genesis. These poetic works that the Contender claims should influence our understanding of Scripture is not inspired of God. We see in Revelation 21 that God's glory will be the light in the new Heaven and Earth as a sun is not needed. This is perfectly reasonable to assume that the light in Genesis 1 is the same until the sun and moon were created. It doesn't contradict any textual evidence. If God did cause His light to shine in the beginning of Genesis 1, there is no reason to suspect that He could not have caused His light not to shine during the evening to set the precedent for the forthcoming sun and moon. Again, you can't simply cry "ad hoc! " and make it true. Believing the universe was created with the appearance of age is no more ad hoc than believing that Christ was born in Bethlehem, even though only the wise men from the East knew to go looking for Him (and they weren't even sure where to find Him (Matt. 2)). Contention Two: Adam and EveI suppose there really is no good answer to this. The problem is that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say (e. g. that we evolved or the universe is really old, both of which contradict Scriptures). It just seems too easy to claim that the Genesis account should be taken figuratively, yet nothing in the Genesis account makes sense from a figurative standpoint. If you can't answer these questions, then why take it figuratively? So that you don't appear foolish in front of people? There is good reason to believe the universe was created with the appearance of age, and if you can't explain what these things mean from a figurative standpoint, it seems best to consider them from a literal standpoint since it's quite clear what these things mean if you take them literally. Contention Three: The Jewish WorkweekJesus may have concealed those things at the time, but He did explain them to His disciples, and they were recorded in Scripture. Regarding the parables, even the ones which aren't properly explained are still understandable from the context. In fact, just before the Parable of the Householder, Jesus asked His disciples if they understood what He was saying to make sure they were keeping up (Matt. 13:51). Even if you're correct about the true meaning of the Parable of the mustard seed being unclear how to be interpreted, that's because as humans we could never understand Heaven until we actually get there. However, if you're going to apply that to creation, it still doesn't explain why God needed to rely on misinformation rather than simply saying, the universe is billions of years old. Surely the Jews understood the passage of time, and large numbers. There is really no reason to inspire Genesis 1 in such a way as to confuse its readers. After all, the entirety of the Scriptures should be understood by everyone, not just those cultures whose science progresses far enough. The difference between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings is that one is God's Word, and one is not. Tolkien did not deign to say this was how the universe was created, or this is how rockets work, etc. However, God was telling us how He created the universe, and I believe He did so truthfully. These passages show that God is evident in nature, not that He is bound by it. The very creation alone testifies to God's handiwork, His creation. The universe was created with the appearance of age because it must have been, not because God was trying to deceive (I will explain again in detail below). (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatibleAs I have shown the Bible teaches against Evolution, therefore it is not possibly compatible. However, this is still a semantic argument because you can really make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. That's why we have so many cults and false religions that spring off of Christianity. Evil men twist the Scriptures to make it say whatever will benefit them the most. This is not a good argument. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatibleTo claim God creating the appearance of age means He is deceiving us is a strawman. Yes, God created everything out of nothing. But consider this: One way scientists measure the age of the universe is how long it takes the light from stars to reach Earth. We can see light from stars a billion light-years away, so the universe is at least a billion years old. If God didn't create stars that far away, our night sky would either be almost completely empty (as we couldn't see the light from any of them), or He would have had to change the speed of light to make it quite a bit faster in the past. The huge span of the universe is just a testament to God's creative power. To claim Genesis 1 must be figurative because the universe appears old is really to limit God. You're essentially saying that God could not create a universe with the appearance of age, although there is clear precedent that He did in the Scriptures. (3)There is not much of a difference here. Jesus didn't just change water into wine, He changed it into the good stuff. He changed the molecular structure of the wine so that it taste as if it had been aged for many years. Again, I thank the Contender for rising to the challenge of the debate. While I can certainly see why the Contender would believe Genesis 1 could be taken literally, I believe that it is more faithful to the text to read it as literal. Only the Scriptures are inspired of God, not these other sources that are being used to interpret the Scriptures for us. As such, I really think we should take the word of God over the words of humanity, which is, of course, deeply flawed.