Observation: The bible claims to be the begining of all things according to the creation account, and ...
The phrase is malformed and nonsensical.
as such I believe that also alot of evolutionists are agnostic, ...
Being malformed and nonsensical, it has no relevance to the existence of agnostic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, or atheist evolutionists.
... I believe these are called thiestic evolutionist.
This lack of relevance should not be construed as license to further butcher the language. An evolutionist who is an agnostic is, by definition, a person who acknowledges the fact of evolution, presumably adheres to one of the theories about evolution, but is undecided about God(s) and/or is of the opinion that the existence of God(s) is unknowable. To call such a person
"a theistic evolutionist" is simply confused.
Recent debates of the creation account show that the creation account could be literal, and has no contridiction.
I presume the accounts to be intended as literal descriptions of creation. These accounts contradict our current scientific understanding.
If you take the creation account literal you will see that evolution is allowed from that point.
The observation is entirely worthless. Genesis proclaims the creation of all winged lifeforms prior to the creation all land-based crawling lifeforms. It is clearly ignorant of the evolution of wings. What the language can be twisted to allow is irrelevant.
So you can see that creation according to the Bible does allow the theory of evolution or does it?
How did birds evolve?