Read the Genesis account. How does it describe a day?
Genesis 1:3-5
"3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
While you are technically correct, God did divide the day and night on the first day.
Even so what was the periodicity of that day? A day on Jupiter isn't the same length as a day on Earth. We are still left with a good possibility that the reference is outside the normal Earth day/night cycle
Does it?!?!
Where?
What I see is...
Genesis 1: 20-23
"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."
Which is then followed up by the creatures of the land. IIRC, according to evolution theory, life began in the seas, and then migrated to the air an land, as they evolved.
Breeding is not "evolution". Breeding required direction. Evolution, by definition, is free of any direction.
Says who? Show me the source that says that evolution is only about change free from the hand of man. Yes, we typically reserve the use of the word "evolution" for that purpose, but evolution is the change in a species into a new one over time. Breeding is simply directed evolution, as opposed to natural evolution. It's really not much different from abortion (and I am not getting into the morals or anything else regarding that subject). A miscarriage is a natural abortion. Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. While we typically use abortion for the artificial process, and miscarriage for the natural one, reality is, at this point of lingual use, particularly in the medical field, both are abortions. Likewise, changes in a species into a new one is evolution, whether it occurs naturally or directed by man.
This seems very weak reasoning to me. You are suggesting that God--who had just created matter, space, the universe, et. al.--couldn't created the animals the way He wanted to begin with?
Couldn't? No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that He wanted certain processes to govern the functioning of the planet and the universe and created the processes, then used them to achieve other goals. You might as well argue against the idea of the water cycle, asking if God couldn't just make it rain whenever He wanted it to. And actually, if we assume the Flood account real, that rain was probably not sourced from the normal water cycle.
Variation in a kind is not evolution. Dogs remain dogs.
But wolves didn't remain wolves did they? And new breeds arise, as others go away, although more of the former than the later.
Does it? Where do you get that information?
Which part?
Science--real science--can't even do that. At best it can offer an explanation and one that is all too often unsubstantiated.
Yes an explanation on the mechanics of reality. I make no claim that initial explanations will always be correct, but they are what fits the evidence of the time. And usually substantiated, again based upon the evidence available at the time.
I understand your argument here but it does ignore a rather large field of study dedicated to proving the Bible--and therefore God--true.
It doesn't ignore it, nor does it ignore all those trying to prove that God and the Bible are not true. It is a simple statement of fact that there is no evidence either way and thus both possibilities are equal in their potential.