Evolution does not disprove the existence of God

This is why I have won this debate. My opponent has tried to play around and weasel out of answering my questions. This is because my opponent has realized that in order to win this debate, he has to state that evolution disproves the existence of God, and that was something he couldn't do. He thought that he could decieve my fellow audience by attempting to convince them that all he had to prove was how neither theory could co-exists. I have stated then and I will state now: Nice try. :) Let me refute my opponent's arguments for one last time: "Well, my opponent does not actually attack my case. ALL of my arguments still stand. He only challenges me to answer some questions. " Well, your arguments may stand, but they don't matter/count. You could be 100% correct arguing that the two theories can't co-exist, and I'm not even arguing against that. I'm just arguing that that still doesn't show how evolution would disprove the existence of God. My opponent said: "Because of these two reasons, God and evolution cannot co-exist. These are the choices for all viewers: (A) Deny the Bible's accuracy, therefore saying that God does not exist, giving CON the winning vote. (B) Accept the truth, that God and evolution cannot and do not co-exist, again giving CON the winning vote. " Well, in order for my opponent to maintain a consistent argument, he would have to do both A and B. He did B, but he didn't do A. :) Oooh, this is just too good. That ought to be enough for me to win, but I could keep on going. As I said: "I strongly challenge you to answer these questions: 1) Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion 2) Does evolution disprove the existence of God? " Now, if you really read my opponent's response, he never really clearly answers my questions. Actually, he just doesn't. First, he says: "NUMBER 1 "Is the Earth closer to 6000 years old or 4.6 billion" (I think he meant to put a question mark there) Now, I see where my opponent is going to go with this. He is going to say that the Bible was mis-interpreted, and that it doesn't actually say how old the Earth is. Don't even play that card. (By the way, according to the Bible, the Earth is actually around 4,000 years old) This question is for a different debate. (You can see that debate between us for reference if you want) In that debate, I PROVED that according to the Bible, the Earth is roughly 4,000 years old. Having answered his first question, I will show you how God and evolution cannot co-exist. Since the Bible says the Earth is around 4,000 years old, evolution does not have time to occur. (Even if it were genetically possible) In this way the Bible and evolution contradict each other. " Ok, first, he makes a reference to another debate. Well, that doesn't really matter because I didn't confirm such arguments in THIS debate. Then he keeps saying 'Well, the Earth is 6000 years old. .. .. according to the Bible of course. ' You see! He doesn't CONFIRM that the Earth is REALLY 6000 years old. That's because that is what he really thinks, but he doesn't want to do that, because as he said, evolution wouldn't have time to occur. If that is true, that would be a victory for me. "NUMBER 2 I have answered this in answering his challenge number one. There is, however, even more evidence. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. " This is taken from Genesis 1:27 of the New American Standard Bible. This states specifically that God created man. He did not create primordial soup, which turned into bacterium, which turned into fish, apes, etc. GOD CREATED MAN. Because of this also, evolution is not able to co-exist with God. " See! He didn't directly answer! He doesn't want to, because if he says yes than he's not a Christian, but if he says no he loses this debate! Then he says: "So, I have answered BOTH of my opponent's challenges. HE HAS NOT ANSWERED MINE. PLEASE DO THIS IN YOUR NEXT SPEECH. " Challenges? What challenges? Try this: I HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WASN'T ASKED ANY. I swear! I wasn't! "Because my opponent has NO case, and mine has been COMPLETELY upheld, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you. " I didn't really need a case. If you read how this resolution if worded, the burden of proof is actually on CON. All I had to do to win is tear down his argument. Take this for example: Resolved: Airplanes do not disprove the existence of cows. Uhhh, you see what I mean. Where resolutions are usually negated by default, this resolution is affirmed by default. Basically, if neither of us had an argument, I would still win by default. Therefore, since I showed how your argument was flawed, I win by default. In conclusion, I clearly stated in the beginning of this debate that my opponent was obligated to use evolution as evidence and then claim that it disproved the existence of God. My opponent probably realized this, and tried to distract everyone from this truth, but he failed miserably. In the act of attempting to distract everyone, he didn't answer any of my challenges and didn't use evolution to disprove the existence of God. Therefore, I have won this debate.