The phrase “not quite” is not synonymous with the phrase “this is not an acceptable answer”. Logically, if God is omnipotent, He does not need evolution. It is not unfactual that evolution has not been proven. Anything else? or should we continue to keep the thread off topic?
No, not quite. Besides, God does not need evolution, which frankly has never been proven at any time.
That the answer was not acceptable was not determined by the phrase "not quite", but by the fact that you felt you needed to correct him. If that answer had been acceptable, there would be no reason to do that.
Logically, if God is omnipotent, He does not need evolution. It is not unfactual that evolution has not been proven.
We've already discussed that. You've agreed that while God does not need to use evolution, there is no reason he could not. Since the question is not about what He needed to do, but what he actually did, that observation is irrelevant to the question.
But it appears that after having admitted there's no reason he could not have done it even though he didn't need to, the fact that he didn't need is still going to be presented as proof that he didn't.
We've come full circle, and there's apparently nothing new to be had so I guess we're finished.