Evolution is not a synonym to 'nature', Still, they are connected in big way in the concept.

Please format your replies properly.

You need two returns to separate lines, otherwise it will just print the second typed line at the end of the first.

Quoting is typically done by using a '>'.

Evolution is not a synonym to 'nature', it refers to a specific mechanism within it.

Still, they are connected in big way in the concept.

Connected, yes. Interchangeable, hardly. An engine is a part of a car, but an engine is not a car.

Abuses and overkill are hardly unique to humans; to give one example, the harmful algal bloom exemplified by red tide is caused by natural climate fluctuations in addition to the human causes.

Still it's natural, it doesn't abuse nature.

Then your argument begs the question against humans being a part of nature.

If humans are actually products of nature, then by the same logic, human actions don't abuse nature any more than algal overproduction.

Like I said, let's not include definitions and other terms derived from evolution itself,

Under such conditions, a fruitful discussion is virtually impossible.

The first step to any understanding between people is making sure that all parties understand what is actually being discussed, what various terms signify, mean, and imply.

Intentionally not including relevant definitions precludes any meaningful agreement about a shared conclusion.

it will be biased.

Then reveal and argue against those biases!

If one can't or won't identify a problem, it's vastly harder to fix it.

I'm not including the Bible in my statements.

If you think that it is relevant and contributes, go ahead. Just be prepared to defend its relevance and the implicit claims such invocations carry.

I'm just using common sense in my statements,

Common sense loses utility shockingly fast when one moves outside of the realm of their common experience.

Appeals to it won't get you much credit here.

because I'm aware, when I use the Bible, comes the atheists biased judging.

To which biases do you refer? Do you intend the prejudicial note typically carried by that term, or just a neutral acknowledgment that all people carry preconceptions?

If it is the latter, I would note that not all assumptions are equal. I'd be fine with getting into the discussion of the epistemology underlying justified belief.