Evolution does not disprove God

No intro, No conclusion, sorry, character limit. Man-Image argument--look to my previous paragraph on two different levels of enforcement for the response. Bible is about why not how, thus rightly does not discuss mechanisms, as God created all is the only necessary statement.Con says were debating God as described in the Bible, not church interpretation. Jesus gave the church authority over the kingdom of God. Refer to Mark 13:34, John 17:18, Luke 9:1, Matt 16:18-19. You just brought a knife to a gun fight, magicr. Sorry you debate God, you gotta debate the church, as God, according to the Bible, gave authority to the church to speak on her behalf.It is indeed unfortunate that I have to spend much of my conclusion on clarifications, since he took everything out of context, but lets begin:I gave a list of different theological interpretations of Genesis 1. Here are the quotes he mishandled:1. What this means is that my opponent's statement: "A wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths," is incredibly important. 2."Billions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely." 3. Next my opponent points out that humans wrote the Bible.I was not arguing as a proponent for these points. I was listing them as examples of differing interpretations. That's all...you could re-read that round to confirm that. You busied yourself with analysis of them in vain.He quoted me stating, "The main message...is they need help." He pointed out the word "need" and said, "There! Look he said it!" At this time will readers please go to Round 2 (not Round 1, as stated before.) Right following this quote I more completely state, "Because even though, I, and all of you, should be fully confident that in a matter of decades we will have the mechanisms of the universe mapped more clearly, the numbers and odds they overcame point to a nudge in the right direction, let's say. If anything the idea of a constant intelligence behind it all is exceptionally conducive." I'm giving an admission that science will explain the complete mechanism of how, so there is no mechanism-need. I'm mildly arriving at the conclusion in bold. Natural phenomena could be miraculous or God could do something miraculous. The point is is that God could easily be fit inside the picture. It's not an ambitious claim, but I don't need to prove anything ambitious, as all I need to demonstrate is that "Evolution does not disprove God."As a side note in that same clause Magicr states, "The question is not whether a deity is needed or conducive, but whether a specific supreme deity, described in a specific document, can coexist with evolution"Response: Brilliant. He concedes a deity is conducive.Definition of conducive, "Making a certain situation or outcome likely or possible."https://www.google.com...Therein The Killer:Magicr has not even offered a rebuttal to my Round 2 argument. In fact in Round 3 he confirms this by stating, "Regardless of whether a deity is needed, or is merely conducive, my general argument still stands."At the point where Magicr concedes a reality where God is conducive to a universe where Evolution exists, he makes this debate near impossible for him. But wait he said this is about a specific deity, he still has the war against crazy-fundamentalist-who-always-find-themselves-on-CNN argument...Of course he still has that argument lingering, and I will get to that. But first we must take a look at what this drop looks like. In the world where you 1) admit God is conducive to Evolution and then 2) state that if Evolution is true then God of the Bible is false, then you have flat out contradicted yourself. This deems your entire platform invalid.So at this point I have one thing left to summarize, in such a manner, that readers will see how magicr COMPLETELY, 100% mishandled the theological debate, his last leg. Therein showing how Evolution and the God of the Bible are indeed compatible.NO LOGIC IN MAGICTo be blunt,Magicr did not double check his reasoning.He says, "In debating the God of the Bible, we must debate God as described in the Bible, not as interpreted by others."So when someone reads Genesis 1 he or she should only look insofar to their reading, as the bare definitions of the words. Magicr's entire argument hinges on this one point, Genesis 1 must be taken literally. Magicr won't win if he does not demonstrate that interpretations are abusive because if he cannot demonstrate that then there's no reason to discount of all them as he wishes.Interpretations, however, are essential to expressing truth.Truth of language is dependant upon context.Interpretations take context as the mechanism for defining.But Magicr's paradigm is, the definition of the word should be the only thing analyzed, for there is no implications from context.Magicr is smart, though, I'm sure this is not a paradigm he believes to be logically, necessarily true. Everyone at this moment define, "Right."<-----In that context.The definition, of course, is dependant upon the context it is used in. So we know the reasoning that magicr is using is not logical. We know that interpretation is necessary. God is immaterial. This is greatly mysterious. An infinity more mysterious than ambiguously using the word "right." So interpreting the message of God is greatly contextual especially since that immaterial message passed through the material, flawed vessel of man. So the interpretations of a chapter in the Bible is based off the holistic contextual experience of God, Bible, and the interpreters personal journey with God. These main items conjoin for one context. Based off this context a interpretation is given to passages. We know when God came incarnate, which I have brought up, through Jesus he only told parables. So even when Jesus, God in person, talked directly to people he did not even talk directly. So how magicr believes that God, through flawed man, spoke directly is bewildering to the logical mind. And suitable to the mind that only makes CLEARLY biased*, non-universal arguments. *And I have proven that interps. are not biased since they've been around for thousands of years.*If one discounts interpretations then he or she discounts metaphorical, allegorical, mythical truths holistically. Which brings the next illogical conclusion of magicr, "It is imperative that the Bible be historically and scientifically accurate in order for us to accept that the part about God is accurate."So to analyze the paradigm of magicr once again, If one item is shown to be wrong then every other item is conclusively wrong.Let me disprove this, I got up to a child, and say, "Stop signs mean go and Einstein authored the General Theory of Relativity."Under magicr's logic and reason this kid is taught to think my statement of Einstein is to be wrong. And according to magicr's reasoning one is expected to think so conclusively. As oppose to investigating and interacting with each statement in it's own right. Magicr's reasoning propagates intellectual laziness.Especially in the context of God, as the true evidence is only experienced in the personal journey.Moreover, this is a logical fallacy called falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, which means he is not even logically reaching his conclusion, as he is making the mistake of false for part(s) thus false for all. By analyzing a part you cannot claim you have analyzed the whole. Metaphorically speaking, for my readers since magicr does not endorse interpretation, just because you know Earth does not mean you have a claim to the knowledge of the solar system.NIGHT!