The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

I agree absolutely with the statement "The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His World" aren't ultimately contradictory." Why so? Because His World must be interpreted without naturalistic assumptions. I would like to note that you haven"t yet responded to the theological implications of the opening round. Please do so. Are the seven scholars you listed professors at world-class universities? According to Ting Wang [1], "The semantic range [list of all possible meanings] of the English word "day" is not unlike the range of the Hebrew word (y"m). No-one denies that "day" can mean a period or era in some contexts in both languages. For example, that"s what we mean if we say, "in Martin Luther"s day " ." "Similarly, in Proverbs 25:13 we find "as the cold of snow in the time/"day" of the harvest." However, it"s totally improper to claim "day" can mean "era" in a different context. For instance, "on the last day of Luther"s life " ," "day" clearly must mean an ordinary day"the modifier "last" and the context"Luther"s passing"render the meaning clear. "In Genesis 1, y"m comes with "evening" and "morning", and is modified by a number. So it"s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day"the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17"22, God"s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil"s advocate"just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, "Did God really say?"" Furthermore, most liberal scholars believe Genesis was a prose historical account. [2] "Actually that provides evidence for my opinion. As I mentioned earlier the repetition of "evening and morning" and the echo/re-echo of "God said/there was" are nothing like historical documentation." I can"t locate those sentences. However, I can refute the idea given here. It is certainly not normal historical documentation. However, it certainly is not even close to a poetic form. In fact, there seems to be too much information, [3] which does not go well with a poetic form. I would like to back up my assertions with some sources. I assert that the genealogies list leave no room for over ~6000 years. This is because one name leads to the next, with the year of birth coinciding with the year of age. [4][5] 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. It is incompatible with the genealogies. I won"t go into the other incompatibilities here. 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? Back to you, and please respond to my opening arguments. This has been a thoroughly interesting debate, although I don"t seem to be putting much effort into this...I prefer reading your rebuttals. 1. http://creation.com... 2. Cited in the previous round. 3. Ibid. 4. http://creation.com... 5. http://creation.com...