The Biblical Account of Creation is 100% true.

In my response I will work somewhat out of order. I will respond to your "word of warning" and go from there. First of all there are many things wrong with the bible, that is the common consensus among mankind, it's not an idea that I'm just throwing out there. There is a reason that non-believers constitute the third largest group in the world with estimates between 16-20% of the total population. Coupled with the fact that the Catholic Church, which is still the world's largest single denomination, doesn't take the bible literally, that puts you in the minority of people who takes the bible as an infallible book. But please don't get personally invested in this debate, I'm not, I'm just having fun. My "attacks" on the bible were not an aim at you or your beliefs but simply support for my argument that the bible is not infallible. I know I'm going a little our of order here but let's look at your response to my claim that the bible condones slavery but says that shellfish is an abomination. You said: "You have to understand slavery. The passage you used does not describe the definition of slavery Americans are accustomed to. When we think slavery, we think Civil War, Abe Lincoln, blacks, whites, etc. The slavery described in the passage is an indentured servant role. If a hebrew owed a debt he couldn't pay, he worked it off... They couldn't serve more than six years. The person to whom the debt was owed couldn't take more than his labor, he couldn't touch his wife or family. And there are other passages that further protect slaves rights. BTW, this does nothing for your arguement that the Bible is fallible." Well in actuality the passage regarding slavery says: Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." Yes you're right the Hebrew is a slave for six years but their kids are slaves for life. They are the permanent property of the master. You don't think that's just a little bit wrong? And you say that this isn't the slavery I'm thinking of, for the Hebrew slave perhaps not, but for the children I don't see much of a difference. Anyway I define slavery as keeping a human as property for labor and withholding rights from them. In both cases of the original slave and of the child I they fit this description of slavery. Perhaps I did not debate eloquently enough but if the Bible promotes the use of slavery than how can you say that is the infallible authority on anything? That just does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Also in another passage it says: Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV) This passage blatantly says that you can hold a slave for life as long as it's not an Israelite. Again how can you claim that the Bible is infallible when it promotes this kind of cruelty? You go on to say that the rules against shellfish (and in all likelihood pork and circumcisions) are meant to promote health. I agree with you, but if the book is the "Word of God" or "God working through humans" than God just lied, and I don't think that God lies, I mean he's perfect right? Why wouldn't a perfect being just explain it to the Israelites truthfully? You say that the Bible doesn't condone polygamy but then why didn't the Word of God make note that it is wrong when one of it's most esteemed characters (David) obviously engages in it as is evident in the passage: "7: ...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel...8: And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom..." (2 Sam. 12). You claim that there is no contradiction in the cocks crowing but there is obviously a discrepancy between one that says it was before the cock crowed a second time and the others that say that the cock hadn't yet crowed. If God wrote the Bible through the disciples then you think all the books would be on the same page with no discrepancy but that is obviously not the case. Look over the passages again if you need to. I really didn't think I would have to type up the full passages to get the point across but, Baasha's death according to the Bible: 2 Chron 16:1 "In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah." According to this verse, Baasha fought with Judah in the 36th year of Asa's reign, yet 1 Kg.16:6-8 says that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign. So if both stories are true, Baasha was still fighting 10 years after his death! When did Baasha die? How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel," (NASB). Forty-two (2 Chron. 22:1) - "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri," (NASB). In reference to the days contradiction it is that and it does not matter if they're days were not 24-hour cycles. The passages say "after three days" but the post-resurrection scripture says "on the third day" that is different and is a contradiction. In reference to the Jeremiah passage I was looking on a website that did not provide a footnote, my apologies you are right on that one. And in regards to the purple/violet I agree that it is insignificant and probably a discrepancy in translation. And also in reference to the vinegar/wine passage I guess that is also not significant enough to constitute a contradiction; however, you cannot deny the other passages that show clear contradictions of fact or order. This thus proves that God could not have written the Bible; therefore it is not infallible and you're argument does not have a leg to stand on. I'll even up it a notch and throw in some more proof that the Bible is not infallible. Cruelty and Violence in 2 Kings God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. 2:23-24 (Is this the work of God?) I'm running out of room now, so I'll go on to your scientific claims. The work of scientists may not be infallibe but it is based off of countless tests that are proven in everyday life such as matters of biology and others, I see no reason to dismiss this specific finding. It seems much more sensible and relies on much fewer presumptions than the creation story. Again you can see different breeds of bacteria evolving over time. New breeds will be immune to antibiotics while older breeds will not. You can see evolution happening. I never claimed that this world in all of it's beauty and glory was an accident, I even said that evolution works with many religions, don't assume or put words in my mouth. To those voting I implore you to look at all of the data and see that my opponent's arguments depends completely on a book which he may perceive as infallible but which obviously has contradictions and utter insanity sprinkled without, making it not infallible at all. Like I stated earlier you do not have to believe in evolution to agree with me, you only have to see that there is doubt regarding Creation.