Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

In this final round I will only rebuttal my opponents argument and clarify on my own. I will remind my opponent that the final round is for rebuttal and the conclusion. Thanks to Con for this debate. It seems that Con wants us to completely drop the origin of life position. This is impossible if the Bible and it's compatibility with macro-evolution is to be discussed. Macro-evolution by itself does not have to discuss the origin of life but the Bible is a different matter. The Bible begins with the origin of life. The whole description portrayed by evolution from 'micro' to 'macro' involves 4.6 billion years. This is totally different than the Bible itself. We have established and my opponent conceded that the Bible describes life only starting just over six thousand years ago. If you believe the Bible or the full version of evolution this still leaves the two unreconcilable. This debate also includes the Bible and everything inside of it, which includes, the origin of life. So, no, this can not be dropped by us or the readers. We both described macro-evolution as the gradual change from one species into another species. If we take the Biblical account and life started six thousand years ago then macro-evolution has not has time to happen at a scale described by scientist. If we take it as it can happen given time even though we have only had six thousand years to see it then we are predicting the future that man will evolve into another species. Let's really look at this, if we take the six thousand year account then none of the majority of animals have evolved yet. How could we know that they ever will? My opponent states that macro-evolution is a fact regardless. Well, if we look at the time scale of macro-evolution and if we accept the Biblical account then, no, macro-evolution can not be took as fact because it has not had time to happen yet. My opponent has wanted us to change the entire debate to macro-evolution and leave out the Bible but that is not the case. No one is denying micro-evolution is true or it can happen within six thousand years but the debate is about macro-evolution. If macro-evolution be true, then we need billions of years for man to be formed and not to mention all the others animals today as well. My opponent then changed his position into that God created everything just as it say's plainly in Genesis but they evolved into us today. Well, this is impossible and macro-evolutionary scientist would agree here. Macro-evolution needs the time frame given to evolve the life today. No way have we evolved from lesser forms into our forms today within a six thousand year period. No one disagree's here that speciation occurs. No one is saying macro-evolution does not occur. What I am saying is that either the Bible is correct or evolution in full is. The Bible and macro-evolution can not be reconciled with the time frame given inside the Bible. With respect to O. gigas, the common name for Onagracaea is evening primrose. The US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service currently lists 175 Oenothera names in their Germplasm Resources Information Network database <www. ars-grin. gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search. pl? Oenothera>, 14 Feb 2007. Note, many of these 175 names are synonyms or obsolete—the number of actual species is considerably fewer. That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited. Boxhorn, J. , Observed Instances of Speciation, 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) <www. talkorigins. org/faqs/faq-speciation. html>. T. A. Brown, Genomes 2, section 15.2.1. Acquisition of new genes by gene duplication <www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/books/bv. fcgi? rid=genomes. section.8694>. "Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now. But they haven't. " Morgan, T. H. 1910. Sex Limited Inheritance in Drosophila. Science. 32 (812): 120-122. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31. Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105. We see my opponent has blended micro, macro-evolution and spectation together as one. He has defined them all as the same thing and simply missed placed those terms numerous times in this debate. Though all are a part of evolution, they all have different meanings. This is rightly so because they all have different names for different meanings and purpose in evolution as a whole. To conclude, my opponent has tried very hard to prove macro-evolution but has failed to show it can be reconciled within the Biblical account at all. I have included the Bible in this debate for a reason and that was the description of life within the Bible. My opponent has tried to play off the description in the Bible as not important or needed in this debate but I disagree. The Bible shows that life formed just over six thousand years ago and that God formed them himself specifically. He did not use evolution to make them come about. Macro-evolution is in need of billions of years for their present representation of evolution. Let's remember that we need not believe the Bible, we need not believe macro-evolution, we need not deny that evolution happens. What we do need to see is that if the Bible claims one thing and macro-evolution claims another and that both those claims can not be reconciled with each other. Resolution is affirmed! The Bible and Macro-evolution can not be reconciled.