if you cannot muster the faith to believe Genesis 1:1, you cannot have the faith to believe John 3:16 or Rom 10:13. The Bible is either completely true or completely false.
Of course not, someone could put the myth in its context and consider it to be metaphorical and inspirational, as it was intended to be. The black and white absolutes thinking is another ultrafundamentalist fallacy, to play a no true scotsman game whenever someone does not fully agree with you, disclosing your intent to dictate rather than to reason.
You also deny the actual origins and formation of the very scriptures your are using as a foundation for doctrinal justification. This discards any depth your arguments could have by attempting to shut down reason and debate. Ironically, when one of your premises is shown to be false, it means according to you that all the rest also is.
It really means: swallow or leave. I'm sure that some leave and those who stay must be very vulnerable, they uncritically accept anything they're told. This suggests an exploitative business more than a concern with honesty and salvation. Loyalty to narcissist crackpots is dangerous.
The myth of evolution is merely another lie concieved by the father of lies to turn people away from the Bible and decieve them.
Explanation: your faith somehow cannot subsist if it faces the scientific knowledge about our origins (not a problem for many Christians), therefore it rests on false dogmatic premises. If this is due to ignorance, it still is false, arrogant and authoritarian. If it is a choice, it becomes a lie, where the father of lies reference is extremely ironic, exposing bad faith.
This is why we absolutley must contend for the entire Word of God - we cannot move on any little part. When we do move, we're allowing the devil to win.
So what do you make of the verses citing messages attributed to Jesus, telling you to love and not judge? Also, bats are birds, rabbits ruminate, insects have four legs and snakes lost their feet? Have you tried the artificial selection tricks of the bible? Do they stand up to scrutiny? Are you certain that you really meant what you wrote?
Here's my analysis: You posit that your word is "Word of God", you quote mine from ancient human scripture what seems to be convenient to you and interpret it like you want, to "speak and dictate for God". You reject conflicting verses and those you don't like, just like you reject reality when it's inconvenient to your dogma. Since "Word of God" is actually yours, the claim to be accepting "all of God's Word" is only about accepting what you like. Your accusations about rejecting all the rest is projection of your own method. As for the Bible, it remains a compilation of various human writings.
And evoluton is not even necessary to show a discrepancy between scripture and reality, as interpreted by your own words. You claim that Earth is young when it's proven to be old. Earth is also not the center of the universe, just like humans are not the only animals.