Romans 5:12
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mene because all sinned
Death came into the world because of Adam's sin. Evolution has death before sin. This was THE argument that convinced me. There are many others that also support creation in 6 literal days, but this one alone convinced me.
Craig, I think you are right that it seems that the Bible and Darwinian Evolution are not saying the same thing when it comes to death.
I think we can also add 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 where Paul says much the same thing: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
I know that some Theistic Evolutionists say that it was ONLY Human death that entered the world with Adam's sin, and they claim that Animal death had been around for millions of years but The Bible does say that before God made man he made the animals in their kinds and "He saw that it was good". But is declaring Creation "good" consistent with Darwinian evolution; a process that requires millions of years of natural selection through the survival of the fittest and the death of the weak?
I know some who say "it was only 'spiritual death'-separation from God' that entered the world at the fall, but "why did Jesus have to die a physical death to redeem us from 'a spiritual death'?"
Another Biblical problem with fitting Darwinian Evolution with the Bible is that in 1 Corinthians 15:26 it says
"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." How can Paul describe death as the "last enemy to be destroyed/defeated" if death is understood (as TE does) as a natural part of God's Creation and not part of God's curse on Creation generally, and humanity in particular?
Thei-Evoists are rare here, so I'll try (act) to reconcile them together.
God said and it was so -- God commanded them to evolve and it was so.
Gen3 You were ultimately made from dust (microbe) and to dust will you ultimately return.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
It's tough to answer this...
Yes, I agree. It's not hard to explain away everything except for that verse.
Along the same line of thought, if salvation can be brought through the obedience of one man, Jesus Christ, because death entered by one man, Adam, does that not fall apart if there never was an Adam? And if theistic evolution was true, there never was an Adam.
Also, not to change the subject (even if slightly), as far as the “long period” theory of Creation goes (I know it’s slightly different from theistic evolution ), how could the plants created on day three have gone two thousand years waiting for the day 5 bees?
It’s interesting how the different elements of creation are inter-dependent.
I think this is a good answer to the question posed by this forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAxRY41ndU&t=23s
Thanks. I forgot that some people won't click on a link unless they can see what it is first. That is much better.
Theistic evolution (and I'll add progressive creationism to this too) definitely conflicts with certain readings of Genesis. The problem all the way around is how to manage the fossil record. Even from the earliest days of paleontology the fossil record has "looked" like progressive creationism. How to accord that with Scripture? I have no idea.
Good question. I guess the short version would be the fossil record is a record of repeated succession-extinction turnover events. For example, we see marine communities that persist with little to no change, then there is turnover where the community goes extinct and is replaced by a new marine community with new types of organisms and reefs, and then that one goes extinct and is replaced by another marine community with unique types of organisms and reefs, and then this one goes extinct and is replaced by a new marine community, etc., etc., etc. So there is this repeated pattern of community succession-extinction turnover, which led to the idea of progressive creationism.
Once we accept that Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations doesn't have the power to produce new body plans we know that Darwinian Evolution or Molecule to Man Evolution didn't happen, because the mechanism that is meant to drive the change over time doesn't have the power to produce the changes required by the theory.
Therefore, when we look at the fossil record, we can know that what we find does NOT demonstrate Darwinian Evolution, and nor does it show us any of the transitional forms/fossils we would expect to see, if Darwinian Evolution actually happen 
This is the trailer for the "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" Documentary where the traditional evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record (among other so-called 'evidence' for Darwinian Evolution) is challenged.
The difference is progressive creationism is not an evolutionary view, it's a creationist view.
(On a side note, modern evolution no longer teaches the oudated Neo-Darwinian view of evolution being just the result of random mutation-natural selection. Theistic evolution, of course, does not need to depend on random mutation-natural selection either. But both of those are separate issues from progressive creationism.)
The problem is, progressive creation is blatantly anti-Scriptural, and is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (the need to reconcile the claims of unbelievers with the truth of Scripture). The reality of the rescue from the fall is (drum roll please.....) based on the reality of the fall. If progressive creation is true, there never was an Adam to fall, and all of Christianity falls apart like a leper on a pogo stick.
Progressive creation is a compromise where none is allowed, between belief and unbelief, between accepting God at his word or believing scientist who tell you they don’t think so.
Jesus validated the teachings of Moses. You have to cast doubt on the New Testament in order to solidify your doubt of the Old Testament. To allegorize away the teachings of Moses is to destroy the foundations you profess to stand on as a Christian. To claim faith in Christ when all you have is God’s word as laid out in Scripture for proof, and then to cast doubt on these Scriptures is to make a mockery of your own faith.
@Kjvav You make a lot of assumptions. No one said anything about allegories (I certainly don't believe Genesis is an allegory). No one said there was no Adam. No one said there was no Fall. Nor does progressive creationism say any of these things (Nor do I say any of these things). I've already said I have no idea how progressive creationism fits in with Scripture (especially readings of Scripture that try to make Genesis a modern day science account). Progressive creationism is simply a statement of what the fossil record records. When we go up through the layers we see the Ediacaran marine community. Then this goes extinct and is replaced by the Cambrian explosion, representing a whole array of new marine organisms. And then these go extinct and are replaced by another marine community, and then another, and another and another. This is simply the truth of what we see in the fossil record. It's unlikely that we're going to wake up one day and find that this sequence of marine community succession-extinction turnovers no longer exists. Denial will not change it or make it disappear.
(Btw, not to get picky, but we have both the evidence of nature/creation (general revelation Romans 1) and the Holy Spirit, as well as Scripture (special revelation))
(On a side note, "like a leper on a pogo stick"? Lol, I have no idea what that would look like, but my hunch is lepers on pogo sticks would not "fall apart." 
)
Well, if God didn’t create the universe in six literal 24 hour days, the only other options are that it is an allegory (I believe the six thousand year or six indeterminate period theory makes an allegory of the text) or else it is just fable. I really don’t see other options.
As far as the leper on a pogo stick goes, a basic principal of homoletics is that the text is the point of the message, but the illustration is the barb that makes the point stick, and I love a good illustration (and yes, he wouldn’t “fall apart”, but you will remember the illustration, and probably the reason I used it😉)
I was wondering what problems have you encountered with reconciling the Bible with Darwinian Evolution?
One problem I have is in Genesis it says "God said...and it was so" rather than "God said and after billions of years of evolutionary processes it was so"
A second problem is in Genesis 3 after the fall God says "you were made from dust, and to the dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19) and NOT "you were made from a pre-human hominid and to a pre-human hominid you shall return".
What difficulties have you found in trying to reconcile Theistic Evolution with the Bible?