Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

Dawkins doesn't have a bible, and you can't debate with those who say "godidit", as that is the sum of their argument no, creationism (YEC in particular) doesn't contradict radio carbon dating, argon potassium dating, geology, paleontology, physics, DNA...wherever we turn, we've never seen any transitional fossils like archaeopteryx or tiktaalik, never seen evidence of humans evolving from earlier forms of life like homo erectus, homo habilis and so on, oh no. we can't measure how far stars and other galaxies are away by triangulation, oh no... I'd say don't listen to him, sorry - he's a creationist, and a YEC at that. Creationists say "we have the conclusion, now how can we fit the facts around it" (as they say, "god did it, I believe it, that settles it"). Creationists knew that Darwin was wrong when he posited the idea of natural selection - how could such information be passed on to offspring? Of course, Crick and Watson discovered DNA some time later and explained it. Now they can't get around it, they talk about interpreting facts differently, but it's still a lie they tell.If you want the wishier-washier version of deism over specific theism, then there's no real reason that some supreme being couldn't have caused the big bang and then sat back for several trillion years to watch it's handiwork unfold. There's no real reason that a superbeing couldn't have caused abiogenesis way back when some 3 billion years ago.The scientific study of evolution doesn't document abiogenesis, it just documents how life is known to change, and it explains the facts. There is no "interpretation" needed, not to the extent YEC's would have you believe.Scientists will often say "I don't know" - YEC's say they always know, like they know that Genesis was written by Moses (it must have been) - even the part that reads "and so he died"...

That's part of the problem with the Bible - it talks in simile and metaphor, flowery descriptive language and also straight facts. It's also not clear where facts are meant and where simile, metaphor or descriptive language is meant.This dogmatic idea that everything in the Bible is literal is a rather new invention and surprisingly pig-headed, as our science grew powerful enough to encompass enough of the universe that it was obvious it wasn't 6000 years old unless god had specifically decided to lie to us - and it could do that almost 500 years ago. Since the greeks had the idea the Earth was a sphere 2000 years ago, you could say it was out-dated when it was written.If you abandon the idea that everything is literal, it's very easy to understand natural selection and evolution. The bible itself doesn't really talk about evolution as far as I know (animal husbandry, yes) - but it also doesn't say evolution doesn't or can't happen (afaik) - it doesn't mention it at all.