Evolution does not disprove God

I must apologize to my opponent for not being a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, as his argument becomes rather trivial. But I'll arrive back to this.ROUND 2 SUMMARYIn R2 I stated, "...the numbers and odds they [Evolution and it's complimentary theories] 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 did not state, anywhere, Evolution has an absolute need for God's authorship. I claimed because of the great odds it overcame God's authorship is a reasonable authorship to believe. It is conducive. It's not certain, but in the truest meaning, it just makes sense.We're dealing with an abstract, immaterial topic. This is often taken for granted, nothing can truly be certain. But with anything, concepts can either fit together or not fit together. My opponent responded in one, minor paragraph, by stating, "My opponent has devoted much of his argument to proving the need for a deity. As I stated above, this is not needed, and I will not deny that another source may have been needed for life to be created. I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being"The first bold "need" : I never said there is a need, nothing certain on a immaterial, abstract topic, only plausible.The bold "not needed" : Agreed. But Divine Intelligence is very helpful and conducive, which you have conceded, on the grounds of odds, which was my entire argument.The underlined sentence and the bold "needed" : Observe the blatant contradiction of the "not needed" and "may have been needed." He just swaps names from deity to another source. So not only did he drop my observation that a deity is conducive to Evolution but he also claims that a need, I did not even claim this, may have to be met by a "source." Then this sentence is contradicted by his last sentence where he states, "I will, however, maintain that evolution itself works without the necessity for a divine being."The amount of contradictions in his short response is bewildering and slightly disappointing. But we do know for sure, is that God is conducive to appease the odds dilemma, as is conceded.THUSANDS OF YEARS OF THEOLOGICAL QUARREL ENDED BY MAGICRIt is, indeed, unfortunate that I am not a fundamentalist, but that's what happen when an atheist want to debate theology--they don't even know where to begin. They assume the elementary interpretation and from there poke holes. The poking of the holes, though, is conveniently predicated off of their interpretation. Lets analyze the strategy of Margicr. He makes the rather fatal mistake of putting all of his eggs in a very small basket. He ambitiously claims that if Genesis 1 is false then God is false. But we find the basket is actually smaller than that. If the elementary interpretation, or elementary, fundamental interpretation rather, is false then God is false.Here are the different interpretations of Genesis 1 which have caused theological friction and debate between church leaders, fathers, and lowly ministers for thousands of years.A Myth Re-EstablishedThe creation account is a Mesopotamian myth that has been carefully re-done exclusively to express theological truths such as: Monotheism, Supremacy of God over nature, etc...Framework HypothesisThe Seven day creation story is not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness in God in creation and, of course, the Sabbath commandment.[6]AllegoryThe creation is an allegory, it's the spiritual message contained in the allegory that is the truth. This is a very old Christian interpretation, it crosses over before Jesus of Nazarene.Theology uber allesA wholesomely accurate Bible is of no importance nor consequence to the theological truths. In other words the Bible should only be expected to be important because of it's theological truths, as it is not a science nor history textbook. The men who wrote the book, number one, were men. The men who wrote the book, number two, were theologians, not scientists and not historians*, trying to grasp the immaterial message of the spirit.Literal SoundnessBillions of years passed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Secondly, what was meant by day is not known, as time was termed exceptionally loosely. Young Earth AdvocatesAs my opponent, Magicr, says, "process of creation that took only six days"Christians only debate this now because of what we know in modern times...Intuitive maybe. But historically speaking, for as long as the church has been organized, church leaders have always debated Genesis 1 and still do today. Origen, Early Father of Church, in his book Against Celus (248 AD) points out much fault with Genesis 1 literalists. He ridicules their lack of spiritual insight. [1]St. Justin Martyr, in Against Heresies (189 AD) states a "day" in Genesis 1 probably meant thousands of years. [2]St. Cyprium of Carthage agreed (250 AD.) [3]Clement of Alexandria writes we cannot know when creation took place from reading scripture, as he states it was "an indefinite and dateless production." (208 AD) [4]St. Augustine, agreed, as he wrote that he believes the time it took is "impossible" to conceive (419 AD.) [5]In the Book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, St. Augustine is said to have looked at the chapter in a highly symbolic manner.This demonstrates that Christians and followers of the God of the Bible have not subscribed to the literalness of Genesis 1 and still subscribe to their belief in God. It also demonstrates that this is not relative to 20th Century discoveries whatsoever.Therein the "either-or" choice Magicr set up as inevitable is nothing but a product of intellectual laziness and is an illusion. MAN, IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GODMagicr claims, "[Genesis states] God created humans [2]. The theory of evolution states that humans evolved from another species over billions of years. If God created humans "in his own image," then they would not have evolved from another species." There are books and huge tomes written about "in his own image" and it's deep, spiritual meaning. The fact that your taking it literal is quite...disappointing. When Jesus told stories they were subtextual, as is much of the Bible told in subtextual, underlining meanings. I can't believe I have to do this again but okay..."The early church fathers were quite agreed that the image of God in men consisted primarily in man's rational and moral characteristics and his capacity for holiness."http://books.google.com...--Systematic TheologyYour contention still does not conflict, as God created man. His mechanism is evolution. Evolution went through the process. End result was woman, man. The Bible doesn't mention Photosynthesis and yes Magicr your correct it doesn't mention Evolution either. The Bible doesn't mention many things scientific. And why is this?Because the Holy Bible is a book of spirituality and theology. Not Biology.For water to evolve it had to come from molten, hot rock of which Earth once was. We did evolve, alike, because we are biological beings born forth into the laws of nature, which is the mechanism of God. But the mechanism speaks nothing of the agent. And Magicr, unfortunately, placed all of his stock in a two thousand year long theological debate. *remaining sources are in comment box.