You are putting theology ahead of observation. This is the same thing the Catholic church did to refute Galileo's helocentric model. They were wrong. This is the same thing the Mormons do today when they try to prove that ancient jewish civilizations existed in the Americas. They are wrong.
The bible by itself is just an ancient book written by superstitious men. Without evidence, there is no reason to put its words above observation.
Your second argument is interesting in that you seem to make such concrete assertions about god and his powers and his ways when all you are going off is the above mentioned ancient writings of men which have been shown to be innacurate in many ways. If god is so powerful, and humans are not able to know the mind of god, who are you to say that god could not have used evolutionary forces to create life? Who are you to say that this was not his master plan? If it is and you believe it is not good enough for god, then you are putting yourself in a precarious postion in critcizing him!
We can only honestly interpret our direct observations of nature in three ways:
1) God(s) created life through evolution, which takes advantage of his wonderful laws of nature and his magnificent foresight.
2) God(s) created life through special creation and erased all of the evidence and made it look like evolution was used. In this case god is a liar.
3) Life was not created by an intelligent being but is a consequence of natural laws that have always been in existence.
Most Christians in the world select 1. you select 2 because you think 1 is too inefficient... nevermind the fact that it makes god a liar. I select 3 because there is no evidence of gods. If there ever is evidence of gods, then I will select 1 for the sake of intellectual honesty.