The bible is historically accurate and factual

Fundamental difference in verifying the works of Christ and proving that Jesus existedThere is no argument that a man named Jesus existed, the issue is secular sources that can be compared and verify his works. The first thing to note in this rebuttal is that Tacticus only wrote one text about Jesus [1]. The one which my contender listed. This verifies nothing other than the fact that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified. That is not the point I was bringing up. It is almost irrefutable that Jesus existed, but the contention is his works. We can trace back and verify almost everything other than the miracles that are in the bible. When compared to secular sources there are no credible sources to show that Jesus did the works he claimed such as raising people from the dead, casting out demons, and healing the blind. Any of these would have been recorded by a numerous amount of secular sources. Yet the only thing that can be verified historically is that a man named Jesus existed, and was crucified. Even If Jesus did exist, that does not verify the bible is accurate and factual as I have just explained. Therefore my end of the BOP is fulfilled in this regard. Creationism and evolutionI think my adversary is proposing that evolution and creationism can co exist in this rebuttal. Which in some cases could be true, but no when we are showing that the bible is historically accurate. If this was a debate about God existing, it would go into what is the cause of the universe. The issue here is that creationism in the bible references Adam and eve as literal. Meaning that God created a man and a woman and through the process of inbreeding the modern world was formed. this is not verified nor is there any way to show this is accurate. I would write an entire argument about the non need for a creator to cause the universe to exist but for this debate it is irrelevant. Even if a God were to cause the universe to exist, it does not prove the bible is accurate. It just shows that an external creator caused the big bang. It is on pro to show that the accounts of genesis are in fact historically accurate. When in comparison to evolution this is almost impossible to source and verify. Tree dating and Carbon datingDroppedIt is also on my adversary to show that the earth is younger than 6,000 years old. This was dropped entirely and even in the last round if she states that these methods are not accurate, that is not the case in itself. Anything can be wrong at some point, but when we look at the number of corrected datings , to the number of ones that come back with wrong results we can clearly see this process is accurate. Basically if she says something likeThis study showed this rock was (x) years old and that is impossible, when you compare that to the fact that all of these studies have shown with reliable accuracy results that we can actually be observed such as trees that are under 100 years old there is no comparison. We can use these methods to test rocks and tress, and actually see if the results are correct and almost all of the time they are incredibly precise and can pinpoint the exact year. if you have something that is correct 90 percent of the time, it is safe to assume that the results you get from studying older rocks and trees will at least come out accurate 90 percent of the time. If it is accurate in most cases, chances are it will be accurate in most cases continuouslyFloodThis was a hypothetical stance. I did say "if" there was a flood. The one thing most cultures this old share in common is a flood myth. The issue is that for the bible to be accurate the flood would have had to have happened around 1,900 BC. This is one hundred years after the earliest recording of it. Meaning even if there was a flood, the bible has it dated at the wrong time, thus rendering it not accurate FossilsThere are inconsistencies in how the fossils should be laid out if there was a flood. Meaning if there was a flood they would have tried to swim upward and would have shown (x) pattern. When in reality they are showing (y) pattern and no signs of trying to escape a global food. That is the essential pointThis was almost entirely dropped due to my adversary not understanding the contention. ConclusionI have shown multiple ways in which the bible is not accurate, nor can ever be accurate. Most of my contentions my adversary dropped or did not address. I addressed all of her rebuttals and showed how and why the bible is not accurate. The most logical conclusion is that it is not infallible [1] http://www.tektonics.org...