shernren,
Basics, 1 and 2
Setting the stage. Everything in Scripture is the word of God. Not only that, but every interpretation of Scripture is by Scripture itself, which therefore means that every interpretation of Scripture is itself also the word of God (or, to be less strong, that its validity rests on the validity of Scripture itself and vice versa). Dangerous.
Basically, what this means is that they look at the context that the verse is in, the historical background, the type of text the verse or passage is and then the correct reading and meaning is revealed. There is nothing "wrong" or "dangerous" about this. If you want to know the true meaning of a passage of a text, you need to look at all these things to determine it's true meaning and reading. This is particularly more so with the Old Testament being written in Hebrew, whose writing is very different from modern day English. The smallest descriptive language or repitition and so on, give some BIG clues on what the author intended to be the main points and so on.
What is, however, "dangerous", is when Christians take ideas from outside of the Bible and shove them into the Bible and twist the Bible to make it fit them and then justify those worldly views from the Bible. Which is, um, to put it bluntly what Christian theistic evolutionists do.
(Basics 3) This statement is an interpretation of Genesis. Because AiG believes that Scripture interprets Scripture, they imply that this statement has equal authority with the word of God, and furthermore that it is inerrant to the extent that the word of God is inerrant.
What they are saying is that this reading of Genesis is the only one that the Bible supports and the only conclusion that an unbiased reader could come to from the text. In other words, the context, historical background, text style and so on, all point to this reading as the true or intended reading or understanding of this passage.
Now as defined, A contradicts B if for A to be true, B must be false. i.e. A contradicts B if A -> !B. And we all know that the "evidence" here is evidence for evolution. AiG themselves say that evidence for evolution contradicts the Scriptural record, therefore it is not valid. But this means that if evidence for evolution is true, then the Scriptural record is false, and since the Scriptural record is the word of God then the word of God is false and God is a liar. Furthermore, any evidence against AiG's interpretation of Scripture that proves to be true also implies that the word of God is false and God is a liar, since Scripture is interpreted by Scripture.
Since that is what the Bible says and all the evidence from it and historical background and considering the context and so on points to this view of Genesis is true, and since the Bible is the Word of God whose author does not lie, then it is a reasonable conclusion to make.
Also, it's the interpretation of the evidence that "supports" evolution - not the evidence itself because the evidence can't speak. It is viewed in light of a theory or a person's opinion - nothing more. If it is consistent with the belief and that beliefs assumptions and presuppositions, then it may provide some evidence for it -- but note that this evidence is based on the larger assumption that the presupposition of the theory is true.
This occurs many times in dating rocks with fossils inside of them. As Dr Monty White explains:
"Of course, the proof of the accuracy of the different dating methods should be that different methods give the same age for teh same rock sample. However, as I searched the literature I became aware of articles in which it was reported that different methods gave different ages for the same rock. In these papers the authors spent a great deal of space discussing why there were discrepancies and why the age should be deterined from the fossil content of the rock or from teh fossils in the adjoining rocks. But there is circular reasoning here:
* The age of the rock is determined from the age of a fossil, the age of which in turn is determined by evolution;
* The proof of evolution is the age of the rocks in which the fossil is found.
In other words, I saw that the basis for dating rocks is evolution and the only proof of evolution is the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found. The assumption of evolution is, therefore, the main evidence for evolution."
Just so you know, Dr Monty White already looked at the fossil record as he explains on pages 261-262 of his article in In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation. During his college life, he became a Christian and then when he did a geology course he became a theistic evolutionist.
He was challenged to explain 1 Corinthians 15:22 by his wife which got him thinking about just who Adam was. He recounted, "I remember thinking that if I believed in a literal Adam, I would also have to believe in a literal Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, and a literal six-day creation. If I did this, I would have to commit intellectual suicide, for at that time, I knew no one who blieved creation. Everyone I knew believed evolution. Every book I read, even those written by Christians, taught evolution." He examined how the New Testament figures (including Jesus) thought of the early chapters of Genesis. He said, "I soon realized that in the New Testament all of the events that are recorded in the first chapters of the Bible - the creation, Adam, Eve, the fall, Noah, the flood, and so on - are accepted as being literal and historical. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament about their being mythical, allegorical, legendary, or even evolutionary."
All this confusion led him on a study of evolution. Ironically, he claims, "It may therefore come as a surprise to realize that I became a creationist as a result of reading about evolution!" [He wasn't aware of any anti-evolution/pro-creation book, article or organization at that time.]
The long and short of it is that AiG says that if they are wrong God lied in the Bible. Isn't it wonderful how much authority some people have?
It is, in a sense, the only conclusion that one can come from given a reading of Genesis and considering those things listed above.