Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

Since evolution is not expressly stated in Genesis 1 or the entire Bible for that matter, any argument against it from the Bible will necessarily be from passages where its negation is implicit. There is simply no hiding behind dictionaries on this matter. But that's okay, because it is irrelevant to this debate. I would like the readers to take notice - that is if they already have not - of what seems to be a pretty dramatic shift in this debate. My opponent continues to assert his position without evidence or any cogent refutations of what I have presented. His position has turned more into a clinging to low probabilities than it does a reasonable, firmly placed intellectual position. "The Book of Genesis reads like a history book. If you didn't look at outside sources you would never even think to question that the book of Genesis was meant literally. It certainly doesn't seem figurative from the language used." Now, you will notice that this completely ignores the internal evidence given in my last round. The rhythmic phrase tohu wa-bohu (formless and empty) in Genesis 1:2; the paralleled days of forming and filling; the 7-day literary motif, the wacky literal requirements of light before the sun and the internal, textual evidence against it. These are all things gathered within the text that seem to indicate poetry, not history or science. Moreover, KeytarHero's bizarre assertion that looking at outside sources is somehow disingenuous is difficult to assess. Does looking at the cultural setting and the literary styles that existed during the authorship of Genesis help in interpretation? I certainly think it does. Imagine you go to a fiction, short-story festival and you read someone's short story that they have on display. The story may seem literal. In fact, there may be very few textual evidences that indicate otherwise. However, the probability of it being fiction goes up dramatically when the setting of a fiction, short-story festival is considered. According to my opponent, however, such a consideration of cultural and social setting is illegitimate. Contention One: The language used My opponent's position does not work with the text and, ironically, requires looking at a source that is wholly outside the text in question (Revelation was written thousands of years after Genesis). Genesis makes it clear that the light created was to "separate light from darkness," (Genesis 1:4b). After this, each day is ended with the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning." The Hebrew word used for evening is ereb. This word denotes the time of the day when light is absent from the sky (e.g. night). In order for this to occur under my opponent's logic, God must have, at some finite moment, imbued his glory with light that visibly emanated to earth and, subsequently, was turned off and on in order for morning and evening to occur. Even further, my opponent will have to answer as to why the sun, created on day 4, is described using the exact same Hebrew phrase in Genesis 1:4b. Purpose of light: The light created in Genesis 1:3 : "Separate light from darkness," (Genesis 1:4b). The sun created in Genesis 1:16: "Separate light from darkness," (Genesis 1:18b). All that is going on in this debate is my opponent is asserting more auxiliary, wholly ad hoc premises in order to affirm a literal reading. A non-literal reading does not require positing any of these very peculiar scenarios where God must sustain the plants before the sun and must himself be the source of light yet nothing changes in the text when lights are actually created by day 4. We don't need to assume that God created the universe with the appearance of age or that snakes literally talk. It seems like story, not history. Contention One: The language used Identifying stories in the Old Testament is not the same as Jesus' parables. Moreover, Jesus does not always identify the meaning of his parables, so that argument is particularly weak. Further, Adam and Eve need not have a direct metaphorical or figurative meaning, as character's in stories are often used for the purpose of illustrating one primary truth. However, given the names of Adam (literally mankind) and Eve (literally life-giver), it is not very difficult to see that the author was probably using these characters has typological or metaphorical representations of humanity at large. Contention Three: The Jewish Workweek Using figurative language and metaphor without afterwards explaining yourself means you are deceitful. At least according to my opponent. What are we to make of the book of Revelation? Furthermore, what are we to make of the parables that Jesus did not explain? Even worse, however, is that among the parables that Jesus did explain, they were usually only explained afterwards to his disciples, meaning Jesus was being intentionally deceitful to the audiences that gathered to hear him preach. My opponent's use of scripture and logic are too inconsistent to trust that a formulated theology that springs from it is sound. His argument hinges on the idea that, inexplicably, God required a universe that appeared old. Yet explained, however, is how this does not exist as a defeater for his very position. The text does not tell us that the universe would or need to appear old, but we know that it does. That means that, according to my opponent, things do not seem like they appear. My opponent believes that Genesis 1 seems literal. He must show the relevant difference between the universe and Genesis 1 that allows one of them to be as it seems and the other to not. According to my opponent, it may be the case that Genesis 1 only SEEMS literal but, inexplicably, is not. In my view, on the other hand, given that Genesis seems non-literal, I can affirm without contradiction or defeater. (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatible This is not a semantic argument. This is an argument that seeks to show the bare minimum necessary for affirming my burden per the resolution. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatible This was not addressed. Though I would like to see my opponent's reasoning for why an omnipotent God would prefer to create a young universe with appearance of age rather than a young universe that appeared young. (3) Evolution is supported by the Bible "I still don't think the likelihood of what appears to be true is greater than the likelihood that it is false." Then the defeater for my opponent's position is only that much stronger. If what which appears true is not necessarily more likely than that which appears false, the likelihood of him being wrong, even in this very assertion, is at least 50%. Moreover, his argument from Adam and Eve begs the question, inasmuch as it relies upon the truth of the matter in question. So that is not strong. His ONLY argument, then, is the assertion that because Jesus turned wine into apparently old wine (which itself is an assumption made from something outside the text), we have precedence for thinking that the earth is old... This is very flimsy theology that ignores the particularly relevant differences. By virtue of changing the ontology of ANY substance via miracle, the substance would HAVE to appear as something it is not. For instance, the wine would have to appear as a substance that had gone through a very particular process of fermentation after being made out of grapes that were picked and pressed - even though it did not. However, creating the universe ex nihilo, there is no ontological change of one thing to another. It is a literal creation out of nothing. This means that there is no fundamental reason for why it need to appear as anything other than what it is. The appearance of age as some sort of requirement only means that God is either not powerful enough to create something to appear as it actually is, or is sufficiently deceitful in wanting a universe that lies when observed.