Biblical truth is false.

In Pro's opening argument, there are many incorrect conclusions presented. I. The age of the man and earth This itself is subject to debate mainly between creationists and evolutionists. Here I think we should consider the "young earth" theory, which you assume the Bible states. In fact, it nowhere says the earth is 6,000 years old, that is what some scholars have calculated assuming there were no gaps between genealogies and assuming the creation account was entirely literal. Still, I will defend this young earth view or rather its plausibility for the moment. Secular science, what you call the "science of man" has come to conclusions on ages based on evolution and radiometric dating. The first, evolution, while by far the most popular theory in science is not without its problems. The main problem is that no one can actually observe evolution on a grand scale occurring. In addition, it is merely a theory. A more reasonable reason that the earth is judged 4 billion years old would be radiometric dating, which is based on measuring the decay of naturally occurring isotopes. However, since you stress the importance of proof, we must consider the three assumptions of radiometric dating. (1) That the rate of decay of the parent has been constant over time (2) That the rock or mineral contained a known amount of daughter in the beginning (3) That the amounts of parent and daughter have not been altered during the history of the rock or mineral except by radioactive decay [1] In order for a date to be proven without a doubt, each of these points must be already certain. The point is, when considering past events that were unobserved, they cannot be proven. There is signifigant evidence that this man found in Africa was 160,000, yet since you weren't there 160,000 years ago, you can't prove it. Again, from a young earth perspective, if it cannot be proven without a doubt that man is over 160,000 years old, then the alternative is possible. This means, man might just be 6,000 years old. But I don't believe this, which brings me to the next point, your assumptions about the Bible. II. Science and the Bible "science and biblical history rarely agree." This is all based on Pro's assumption on Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, and taking the Bible out of context. Your whole argument is based solely on the literalist's view of the Bible. Your opening sentence: "In contrary to most religious beliefs" shows a lack of knowledge. Where in the Bible does it claim the age of the earth? It only claims the manner in which it was created and a number of historical events that aren't generally dated. There are thousands of Biblical interpretations, some using secular science itself. Many people believe that evolution and scripture are perfectly compatible. "In order for something to become truth it has to have evidence that proves it to be true." Now let's consider the main argument here. It is not my job to prove the Bible is true, but rather your job to prove it is false. I do not believe in the Bible because it was proven true, rather I believe in the Bible because it makes the most sense. Now Pro has the difficult task of proving the Bible false and incoherent with science. "The bible is a book. A book filled with words that prove very little to be true." Now this whole ramble does nothing for the debate unless Pro finds sources and examples for this. Pro's job is now to start presenting some real arguments that show the Bible is false, unscientific, untrue, etc. [1] Garner, Paul. The New Creationism. Evangelical Press 2009.