That is probable, but I didn't remain consistent throughout the debate which would make my argument relatively weak.

Then what was the use of even giving me a dispute if you are just going to "brush it off"? Is this your method of admitting defeat?

We can not agree that God used the method of evolution to bring about man because that would require that God a bacterium.

That is inherently illogical if I may say. Sir, you must take note that a deity can simply use evolutionary processes to bring about organisms. We truly are composed of abiotic matter that was able to evolve into something greater. If a deity creates these building blocks is it not using evolution as a method of creation?

We are stated to be made in God's image.

Do you truly understand what that means? I hope you realize that God cannot have an image of any sort since he is outside of space-time and thus lacks the components of molecular structure.

We were made from bacteria long ago that one day eventually became man's oldest ancestor.

I can agree with this point here, yes.

If this is true, that God is nothing more than bacteria, then that would make the dating system in the bible wrong.

You have nothing to lend credence to such a claim. One must ask what created these bacterium or at least how did they become living. We know that the creator, whether deity or the universe always held the intention to create life where certain requirements can be met. Earth is one of those places, but then what created that process? Why do proteins do as they do?

Things do not stack up, literately, or philosophically

You have not proven this to be true, nor your other assertion. You are simply rambling as of now in hopes of striking a plausible point, but to no avail you have yet to find one.

Of course this is all based on the assumption that we are talking about Yahweh. Which seems to be the only God opposed to evolution.

In what sense is God opposed to evolution?

I don't think you properly assessed my argument, sir.

Properly assess the biblical verse that has the tendency for many people to believe the Earth was created between 6,000-10,000 years.

2 Peter 3:8 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Do you notice that within the text the word "like" appears? It eliminates the absolute belief that one day is equivalent to one-thousand years. Peter, in context here, uses a simile to show that God is beyond time. In the days of the writings of this book this would be an acceptable simile, but now we tend to expect higher quantities of numbers to appear.

You must also take into account that anything a deity does must be understandable to humans if the deity wishes to lay an edict of command or to thrust a point or message across it's subjects. Therefore, saying a day is like a thousand years is only necessary. What is your next rebuttal?

That's religions favorite ace in the hole.

Not really, we truly cannot 100% accurately assess what the bible meant unless we know the authors purpose and intentions. Also it's in Hebrew. That makes the translations even harder for scribes.

Anything is metaphorical when it doesn't stack up with science.

Incorrect again sir, must I lay the notion that a deity can easily use the things we know of today as instruments of it's plan? A bacterial infection in anceint times had no reasonable explanation besides curse or something, now we know what these bacteria do and are capable of through observation and experimentation. Are you going to say that God, in no sense, can use simple bacteria as an instrument? I feel as if many non-believers tend to believe that a deity must only use supernatural processes to complete it's tasks.

So maybe God is just a metaphor?

For what, precisely?

If that's the case he isn't responsible for evolution, evolution is responsible for him.

I can agree to a nice extent being the agnostic that I am, but again are we going to assume that a deity cannot use the method of evolution to bring about creatures of all sorts?

Incorrect, sir. The English translation guves credence to such an interpretation. The Hebrew (or greek, not so sure anymore) makes note that the time of creation is unquantifiable, in other words, a very long time. Also we don't know the authors intention. It could simply be metaphorical.