Ok, let's assume that evolution is true and that we share a common ancestry with apes, and that we've been in our current form for over 200,000 years.
When did sin enter into the world? Was there sin (murder, stealing, lying, adultery, etc) during those 200,000 years? What about death?
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Romans 5:12-14
Who was this one man? At what point does he come into the picture? Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people. Not to mention, Jesus is why restoration and freedom from sin is available to everyone, just as Adam is the reason that sin and death came into the world and afflicted everyone. Please explain at what point sin and death entered into the world.
Please explain Noah and the flood, as this event was referenced by the Lord Jesus Christ who compared it with the end of the world. The Bible tells us that the three sons of Noah went on to birth the three races of people - Ham, the Africans (Blacks)...Shem, the Asiatics (Arabs, Jews, and Orientals)...and Japheth, the seafaring peoples (Europeans and Turks). Is the Bible wrong? After all, according to science, the Jews came from the Canaanites, who were Hamites. And supposedly all humans descended from a dark skinned East African people, with whom modern Africans share the highest number of genetic markers. This explicitly contradicts the Bible. Completely. What do you believe?
A good example of how methodological naturalism can produce lies can be observed by the dating of the New Testament. Here is an example of the way these scholars think: We know that because the destruction of the temple and the siege of Jerusalem was prophesied by Jesus in great detail, the Gospel of Mark must have been written after 70 AD (we are far too intelligent to believe in something like prophecy). And because the Gospel of Mark came first, we know that the other Gospels must have been written well after 70 AD. We know that the Gospel of Mark came before Matthew, because Matthew contains the same prophecy fabricated by the author of Mark, but is much longer and more likely to have incorporated other sources. And because they were written so late, they could not have been written by the actual disciples of Jesus. Likewise, we know that there must have been a Q source and an L source, because we know that there is no such thing as a Holy Spirit which brings all things back to the disciples' remembrance as Jesus supposedly promised. So naturally, the similarities and common factors must be explained by another source. This makes it possible that the Gospels may not have been completed until the 2nd century. Furthermore, the epistle of 2 Thessalonians makes reference to fabricated prophecies of Mark and Matthew, therefore we know that those epistles must have been written much later by an imposter using Paul's name, as Paul died before the destruction of the temple.
They do the same with the old testament. Isaiah, Daniel, and many books in the Bible have been maligned and disputed by scholars who attempt to discredit the Word of God by employing methodological naturalism. And they just keep building and building, theories based on theories based on assumptions. And then when I am outreaching, someone tells me that they don't believe in Jesus because the gospels were written so late. This is the kind of circular reasoning that methodological naturalism produces. Not just in biblical studies, but in all the sciences. It is a house of cards - cards built upon cards - and it all seems reasonable and solid as long as you are viewing it through the correct angle. But it is a very strong delusion.
