No, I’m afraid it does not. I do not believe in any watered down theory of evolution. I accept the theory of evolution just as it is explicated by scientists from Charles Darwin to Eugenie Scott. What specifically did you imagine that I had watered down?
You mean to say that if someone calls himself a Marxist but also says he doesn’t believe in the theory of surplus value, dialectical materialism or even socialism, then he’s still a Marxist? How bizarre.
Not necessarily here, though. Maybe dinosaurs would have remained the dominant species here and individually sapient yet heavily socially integrated species would have still evolved elsewhere.
Given the rather large number of errors of logic and fact in your OP, referring to another’s comment as “idiotic” exposes a bit of irony that could dwarf the entire Mesabi range.
However, to get to this conclusion, he must impose his own set of rules and definitions that are not consistent with actual reality.
Recall that most Christians view the immortality of God as outside time and space, providing God with a level of foreknowledge. Without getting sidetracked on whether they are correct in that belief or any arguable inconsistencies in that belief, Christians tend to believe it. This means that God could know the exact result of creation, (Big Bang or whatever), and ts follow-up events leading to the curreant situation on Earth despite its random nature and choose to employ it as he wished.
As already noted, a number of Christians–even Christian scientists–accept wholeheartedly the scientific description of evolution. Without the devout Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Darwin’s theory would still have been floundering around in the “nice try, but no cigar,” realm of hypotheses well into the 1940s or later. (I would presume that someone would have eventually pulled together work similar to Dobzhansky at some point, but he is the one who actually pulled it together when he did.) The fact that real Christians accept the real description of evolutionary theory as accurate places the OP into the realm of mindgames or insupportable sophistry.
Guided evolution seems to be in tension with treating evolution as an explanatory hypothesis.
The idea that God exquisitely fine tuned things from the beginning such that mankind would naturally evolve as it did invites the question why God would do it that way instead of simply creating the universe by fiat. Why the rigmarole? Is it just to test our faith or something? (I’m reminded of my uncle Roger, a Church of Christ preacher, who believed fossils were put in the ground to test our faith.)
But I do think it is viable for a Christian to believe in Evolution on the understanding that some other species could have evolved sentience on Earth instead of humankind. This respects the fact that Evolution is a powerful explanatory theory that is made true by substantive facts about the way the world works.
I don’t know any Christians that believe in this random nature you describe. The ones that I’m aware of believe humans existing was part of God’s plan, and not just an end result to the laws he created. If he planned for us to exist, then he made sure each biological interaction would occur, including mutations. This would make evolution an illusion and not “natural selection” but “God selection.”
Seven of Nine? Wait, when did Borg have anything to do with this argument? 
And yet you fail to point out a single one of such errors. Why is that?
The last part of your post then argues against the OP by bare assertion to the contrary, which is not a very effective debating tactic.
But it hasn’t been convincingly argued why that is. Evolution appears to be a more or less random process from our perspective. There’s no reason it has to be a random process fro GOD’s perspective, whose understanding of the universe is infinite and beyond the capacity of mortals to comprehend. Why could an omnipotent God not create a universe in which the physical laws governing it would inevitably result in the creation of human beings? To a God who understands the position and nature of all matter and energy in the universe, that would’t be hard at all - indeed, to an omnipotent God, nothing is hard. There is no limitation on what the Christian God can do, think, or make the universe do.
From our perspective, being inside that universe, the nature of the universe would appear precisely as science explains it - which would apply not only to evolution, but all science. If a Christian can’t believe in evolution, how can a Christian believe in any part of science? Every aspect of physics contributes towards the understand of how human beings came to be. The position and orbit of the Earth and the solar system, the nature of nuclear fusion and stellar physics, the elemental makeup of a terrestrial planet, the fact that ice floats - all are all critical parts of our existence, and all created by what science asserts to be random interactions of particles. Why is evolution a stretch for a Christian to believe, but not astrophysics?
Do you believe that it was possible for humans to never evolve?
I’m neither Christian nor Liberal, but I’ll answer: of course it was “possible” for humans never to evolve. A well-placed asteroid would have put paid to that quite nicely.
I agree, as evidenced in my post above. To elaborate:
Obviously, there are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. There are over a billion Christians on the planet, and if even 1% believe in evolution (I’d think it’s much more than that) then that’s over 10 million counter examples to the claim in the OP.
What the OP really seems to be saying, as near as I can tell, is “Lots of Christians believe in evolution, but real Christian’s don’t.” Basically, he’s defined what it means to be a “real Christian” so as to make his claim trivially true, even though that’s by no means a common sense definition of a “real Christian”.
Or maybe the OP is trying to say “Christian’s shouldn’t believe in evolution,” but in that case, it’s a weak argument. He could at least cite some scripture or something. Instead, he just throws out a bunch of claims like “you can’t be a Christian and believe X” which are no better supported than the original claim that “you can’t be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution”.
I don’t know why people are criticizing these statements.
How can you tell if someone is a Christian? The only way is to ask them. Any details about how they carry out their beliefs are subjective and a matter for interpretation. I do not think there are any statements that all Christians accept as true.
This applies to most labels used on large groups. What is a liberal? What is a Republican? Other than self identification, these large groups do not have any universal beliefs.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As to the OP, while during the age of the dinosaurs, it would have been impossible to predict the eventual outcome of Homo sapiens, the fact remains that it was the result. For whatever reason, this universe resulted in our existence. Alternatives may be interesting to posit, but they did not happen.
In the end, evolution did lead to us. That fact is neither contradiction nor proof of Christianity.
He could. But that’s not “The Theory of Evolution.” That’s a plan which makes it look like nature has selected for traits which only seemed to arise randomly when it’s God that chose that those traits be selected.
He can’t do what is logically contradictory. If He chose for us to come in to existence, then nature didn’t select- He did.
No, science explains that nature selects for traits and that human existence was not selected for in advance.
This post raises issues not discussed (but touched on) in the OP. You are really getting at Dawkins’ response to the “separate magisteria” argument for the coexistence of religion and science, which is that the universe is necessarily a different place if one believes in an all-powerful god. In other words, none of science can co-exist with a belief in god because a verifiable and repeatable phenomenon could just be god working magic essentially.
I just saw post 34, where the OP clarifies what he was getting at somewhat. I’ll add another response below.
Because numerous previous posters had already pointed them out and I see no reason to submit “me too” posts.
I have pointed out an actual event that is in direct contradiction to you attempt at a logical hypothesis.
Since your OP is nothing more than an argument by (flawed) assertion, the noting of a contradictory fact is a very effective debating tactic. (You do realize that you are taking the side of the Inquisition against Galileo, attempting to argue from a bad principle against an observable fact, right? 
OK, so the OP claims that what he’s really saying is (hopefully I’m representing this accurately):
“If you claim to believe in evolution, but you also believe God pre-determined the outcome (as many Christians do), then what you believe in isn’t really evolution.” (paraphrased)
I don’t really see any inherent logical conflict in saying “God created a process by which random mutations, changing environmental factors, and natural selection led to humans.” It perhaps requires that the “random” elements were specifically chosen, and yet that this was done in such a way that they obey the same sort of statistical distributions as if they were truly random. You can argue that that version of events runs counter to Occam’s razor, but that’s more of a general objection to the idea of God than specifically something that has to do with evolution.
Me neither.
That’s not natural selection, is it?
In other words, it seems like nature selected, only God did?
The OP also seems to be getting at the question: “If the ultimate explanation is ‘God did it’, what was the point of all that evolution stuff as opposed to just saying ‘Let there by humans!’?” I guess if you believe in both God and science, then at least a partial answer is “God chose to create a universe where everything follows certain physical laws, and humans arising from evolution, rather than spontaneous creation, is a reflection of this general principle about how the world works.” You could ask the more general question: “Why would God want to create a world that is bound by physical laws?” but then again, even without believing in God it is far from clear why we live in a world bound by consistent physical laws.
I do think there’s an interesting question in there somewhere. It’s a shame the OP phrased it in a way that comes across as “Hey Christians! I know better than you do what you should be believing!”