The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

My opponent agreed with my claim that Gods word and the world he made will not be contradictory. He also, however, said, "I will not refute the claims that the Earth is old. Not in this debate. It is, however, incompatible with the Christian Bible and the Christian God. " That is problematic because if the two "books" of Gods self-revelation are consistent than the old earth claims are central to this debate. "Jesus states in Mark 10:6, 'But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ' Here He was referring to Adam and Eve, who He claims was around from the beginning, not from near the end. " I just do not see how this is problematic at all. It is similar to in Genesis 1 when it says, "In the beginning God created. .. " It would be near impossible to show that "beginning" in both places means near instantaneous. The text just does not imply that. "In Luke 11:50-51, He states, 'That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. ' So there were prophets from the foundation of the world. Were there any monkey prophets? I think not. " Why would I believe there were monkey prophets? "In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' How could humans perceive the 'invisible things' of Christ if they were not at the creation of the world? " You're interpretation is clearly off because even with the YEC view humans would not have been around to see the creation of the world because that happened before humans were made. My opponent made the claim that the Hebrew word "Yom" always means a literal 24-hr day. However, besides the fact that there is no grammatical rule in Hebrew grammars that requires such an interpretation, it's simply false. For example, consider The phrase "day one [yom echad]" in Gen. 1:5 is identical to the one found in Zech. 14:7, referring to "the day of the LORD" clearly not a 24-hour day. "Evening"/"morning" isn't mentioned on the seventh day, suggesting God's complete rest from this initial creation is still continuing (cp. Heb. 4:4: "God rested on the seventh day from all His works") a very long "day" of rest! (See also Heb. 4:9, 11: God never truly stopped working; he simply ceased creating. ). If this final day can be more flexibly understood, then why can't the others? If Gen. 1-2 is a historico-poetic genre (real history using poetic and figurative language), then it's unfair to make unwarranted literary demands upon it (such as the ordinal + yom configuration = 24 hours). Think of how wrong-headed it would be to insisting that Revelation's numbers be literalized for similar reasons, when this genre (apocalyptic-prophetic) literature is highly symbolic. Think also of Daniel 9:24, which speaks of "seventy weeks"; these weeks aren't literal weeks, but refer to years. "It is certainly not normal historical documentation. However, it certainly is not even close to a poetic form. " This I find interesting and would love to hear more information on because I believe I gave lots of example of poetic language found in Genesis and I do not know of anyone that denies the creation story being a poem. My opponent thinks that the genealogies in some way discredit the idea of an old earth. That is, however, simply untrue. Old earth creationists do in fact believe in a literal Adam. "So in the next round consider the question, when science and the Bible are seemingly in conflict, which one is compromised? Or is both compromised? " I already stated in round two that if Gods word and science are in genuine contradiction that I believe we should bow to scriptures authority. However, I do not believe there is a contradiction. As I said in the last round the more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.