The Bible cannot be taken literally, and cannot be a viable source of evidence

" And yet God raised Jesus from the dead.And how do you prove he did not." I would like further evidence from your statement, for it to be viable. The Bible is a biased piece of religious text, written in a time of superstitions, where people had little scientific literacy. As I said earlier, the Bible has been rewritten and gone through many changes in history. How exactly can that be a reliable piece of evidence? Where is evidence for the Bible, and its numerous statements that have yet to be proven? Unless my opponent can not answer those questions, the argument rests. "Since you were not there to see with your own eyes that he stayed dead." I find it funny how my opponent uses this against me, when human biological limits are around 100 years to live. I am certain that my opponent did not live for 2,000 years, and he was not there to see Jesus' resurrection. So, using he's reply, how does my opponent know Jesus did rise back from the dead? Based on our knowledge, its a scientific impossibility to come back from the dead in 3 days. "There has been 6000 years of history that buried any evidence of them. Even a world wide flood.The house I grew up in has been torn down and graded over. There is no evidence it ever existed either. Just a memory." Actually, we can recover DNA evidence from the smallest tissues, to a full fossil. For decomposed bodies, we can work with the bones or teeth. Or, any tiny bit of hairs or any tissues left behind. (http://www.forensicdnacenter.com...) If there was a world wide flood, how do you know it was god? How do you know it was not just melting snow from the ice age? Please provide further evidence for the world wide flood, and that it was the cause of god. If an entire house is torn done, they could know it was your house by the blue prints and and leftover material. " Just to clarify that , it was 8 people left after the flood. That was 5000 years ago. If you were to take one kernel of corn on the first square of a chess board and doubled it every square" Yes, 8 people is not enough to bring a population of 7 billion either. Even 500 people wouldn't be enough to fully colonize another star system. There simply is not enough genetic diversity. You would need at least 10,000 people to colonize another planet, and maintain stability. (http://science-beta.slashdot.org...). If it is 5,000 years ago, then it is even more scientifically impossible. It is just too little of a time. You cannot compare a non-living thing, (kernel) to a living thing, with many chemical reactions taking place (human). The reason why our population has sky-rocketed because there were 180 million people. Not 8 people. Plus, due to our better medicine, life spans have increased. "You say that dirt cannot make a body. But if it was very well put together dirt, like enough of all the right elements put together." Dirt contains gases, liquids and a myriad of organisms. Let me point out that the human or any other animal cell, is far to complex to come from dirt. Here are the list of cellular organelles: Nucleolus Nucleus Ribosome Vesicle Rough endoplasmic reticulum Golgi apparatus Cytoskeleton Smooth endoplasmic reticulum Mitochondrion Vacuole Cytosol Lysosome Centrosome Cell membrane (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Dirt does not contain the proper elements or compounds to create a fully functioning cell. Then, how can dirt create a fully functioning body? I would also like to ask, what kind of dirt did god use? There are many kinds of dirt or soil on this planet. "Nowhere in the word does it say God told Noah to bring any fish in the Ark.And why do you think he had to bring full grown animals and birds in.I don't know how big the ark actually was, but it was sufficient." Actually, if you had read my reply, I never said fish. I said whale. Whales are nostril breathing species, and they are not fish. They are mammals and they breath air. If you did not know how big the ark was, how do you know it held all the grown animals and birds? My opponent admits he did not know how big the ark was, therefor the fact that Noah brought animals into the ark is considered false at the moment. If you must know how big the ark was, it was 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft). (Source-http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Ark) Let me point out that Blue whales are 30 meters in length and 190 tons. Two blue whales would sink a boat that big. Let alone 2 of each species. The titanic was 882 feet, made out of metal and it sank. (Source- http://en.wikipedia.org...) Thank you for your reply con.