Literal biblical creation is unbelievable.

I apologize again for my absence last round. I recommend that other debaters do not accept new debates during 15-page AP US History papers. I will allow my opponent to post his closing argument in the comments section if he wishes due to my absence. However, I'm not sure that such an argument could change the voters' minds. The negative wins this debate because my opponent has not posted a single logical impossibility throughout the debate. Contrary to what my opponent has said, I have not actually offered any semantics arguments, nor any argument for that matter. I simply asked a clarifying question. On to the debate. I will be addressing both his second and third round arguments, so please bear with we if I begin to sound redundant. "1) The creation of light. After the creation of light (verse 3) there is reference to evening and morning, and yet we have an entire 2 "days" until the creation of the sun. Surely evening and morning are functions of the sun and could not exist without it." As I am sure my opponent is well aware, the Bible was not originally written in English. (Genesis was written in Hebrew) It makes perfect sense to use the term "day" to describe the separateness of the light and dark. "Day" has numerous meanings even in English. Scientifically, it means an approximately 24-hour cycle involving the Earth and the Sun. Practically, it means the waking hours of a given date. Figuratively, it means an opportune time. (His day will come) My opponent is even incorrect when using the scientific definition, for a "day" is a section of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun. (A "day" for Jupiter is about 10 hours long, while a "day" on Pluto is over 153 hours long) "2) Verses 6 and 7. Here heaven is created between the waters of the earth and other waters (having been separated). I see no other interpretation than the ignorance of the authors in interpreting the blue sky as "water" above the heavens. Furthermore, there is no credibility in the concept of waters above the earth, gravitionally it is impossible." My opponent seems shocked at the idea of water above the Earth. Perhaps he would feel more comfortable if we called the water "clouds?" I suppose clouds are gravitationally impossible then? "3) Verse 28. Here man is given dominion over the other living creatures of the earth and commanded to subdue it. This, for me, shouts out as the author giving license to man to do what he will with the planet and although not a particularly strong point against it being unbelievable, it certainly points strongly to it being a human construction and not a literal account of history." 'And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heavens' Doesn't it make sense for God to tell his most beloved creation to not be eaten by fish or birds? This doesn't seem unbelievable, it seems logical. "Hey human, don't let the birds push you around OK?" Genesis 1 Affirmed "1) Creation of Eve. The creation of light, the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars and every living thing on earth was done from nothing, but Eve must be made from a part of Adam. Why this exception, except to make clear this passage "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". This is an odd passage to include before the "fall", since the sins of procreation were not yet established." What is hard to believe here? If matter can be formed out of nothing, surely it is less difficult to form something out of a previously existing something? My opponent is correct in that it does uphold that passage. How observant. "2) God makes man a second time. Chapter 1 verse 27, Chapter 2 verse 7." This is but a simple literary concept. The outline is set in previous verses, and then you go back to fill in details. Not hard to understand. EVEN IF man was created a second time, it would not be unbelievable given the fact that man had already been created. Something becomes much more plausible after it has been done. Genesis 2 Affirmed. "1) Talking snake. I honestly don't think this needs any clarification, just talking snake. 2) "upon thy belly shalt thou go". Not exactly a punishment for a snake." My opponent wishes for me to drop these points, so I shall. Genesis 3 Affirmed. "1) Cain gets a wife when his mum is the only woman in the whole world (verse 17)" Oh right, because it would be practical to list every single human that was born since creation. The notable people are usually listed, and the not-so-important ones usually aren't. Is it really that hard to believe that Eve could have bore both boys AND girls? Inconceivable! "2) Cain builds a City when there's only himself, his miraculous wife, Adam, Eve, Abel (deceased), and Enoch in existence (verses 1-17)" If those were the only people alive, then the city wouldn't have to be very big now would it? If there were more people, then the building would go faster. What seems to be the problem? We see cities all around. Genesis 4 Affirmed. Now to move on to my opponent's second batch of arguments. -----repeats, skipped over----- "Chapter 2 1) Creating Eve from a rib is also logically impossible, only cloning would be an explanation that fit with observable reality. If Eve were a clone then her genetic make up would be identical to Adam and there would be no way of meiosis contributing to variability. Consequently all offspring of this couple would be almost identical." Hmm, I must have forgotten that we have human clones walking around. Those are really believable. Uh, no. Please apply my previously stated arguments. In addition, current cloning methods require the fused egg to be placed in a foster mother's womb. If Eve were a clone, there would have been no woman to birth her. My opponent's suggestion is the illogical one here. "2) Genesis reads, in its early stages, as chronological account. It is made quite clear that God created man and woman on day 6, then sanctified the 7th and created man again the next day. If a literal interpretation is taken then either there were two Adams and two Eves or one of the days is wrong. If something is wrong in the account then it cannot be taken literally." No, no, no, no, no, no, NO. Please see my previously stated arguments. The days are not incorrect, literary devices are being used. "Chapter 3 1) Snakes are unequipped to produce speech. Their tongues, palette and teeth (those snakes that have them) do not allow for the complex movements required to make the plethora of consonant sounds humans can produce. Eve clearly takes part in a conversation with this snake - a logical impossibility. 2) I'll admit I was just having fun with this one. Ignore it." I suppose snakes have not changed in the slightest in about 6,000 years? I do not wish to put words into my opponent's mouth, but I will assume he believes in common theories of evolution. That being the case, minor changes such as jaw transformations should not be hard to cope with. "Chapter 4 1) Cain's wife is a logical impossibility since a literal interpretation means that the only people on earth are Adam, Eve and Cain prior to this moment. The only way this can be possible is if unmentioned offspring of Adam and Eve are brought into the story, however since a literal interpretation does not allow us to add information to the account it remains a logical impossibility." Well, didn't we add the supposition that the atmosphere produced breathable air? Yes. Why? Because we can see the effects: Adam and Eve did not immediately suffocate. Did Adam and Eve have other children? Yes. How? Because Cain married one of them. I have run out of characters, so I must end my contentions. I apologize for not attacking my opponent's last point, but please observe it as a simple semantical argument. How hypocritical. I u