The Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge and information.

To start, I'd like to cite my source for some of my second argument. This was (partially) a quote from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, a set of bible footnotes based off of the commonly used King James Bible. I've done this debate before against Bible2000, but he was unable to argue against me for schoolwork reasons and politely asked me to copy-paste my arguments into a new debate. In my original arguments, the quotation marks and citation were included, but I didn't end up copying the last few characters. Thank you to someone(I forget who) in the comments section for that correction. I'll now address my opponent, who, instead of criticizing my arguments, attempted to shame my style of debating, saying contemptuously, "I would like to primarily take issue with your technique of argumentation. Not only was the layout of your argument painfully mundane, but you also provided yourself with a premise that is ridiculously easy to disprove ... As a matter of format, please take this Syllabus-esque debating technique elsewhere, it's about as creative as a straight line...'My second argument is..', are you incapable of gliding through your argument without signposting your next point like a falling rocks sign." I take issue with this constant stream of petty insults. Not only is this the Ad Hominem fallacy, but attempting to assault my format, of all things, instead of my actual content, is not intellectual debate, it is simply a low attempt to seem superior to and shame your opponent. I would ask my opponent to take issues of greater substance in the future. My opponent also maintains that I have provided myself with a premise that is "ridiculously easy to disprove." He says that "Anyone can pick out contradictions in the Bible John, anyone." He asks me if I really take the Bible seriously. No, I don't. He even says that "Of course, the Bible isn't an 'accurate source of scientific knowledge and information', but it doesn't claim to be that, I doubt the intention was to prove absolutely that 'the world is 6000 years old'." He is here quite literally ceding the argument to me, maintaining that his side is indefensible. Instead he argues a completely separate and irrelevant to the debate position, which is that the Bible is, as stated by many Christian apologists, a set of metaphorical moral guidelines. This is irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether or not the Bible is scientifically accurate, not whether or not it is a series of overly subtle metaphors written by desert nomads 2500 years ago. In addition, the Bible does indeed claim, and is hailed as by one-third of Americans according to a recent Gallup poll, to be the literal word of God. It was not presented to us as metaphors by the religion itself, but instead as God's immortal word, passed down to us by generations. Whether or not I strain to find some hidden meaning in it so I can call it moral teaching is, again, simply irrelevant. If you wish to have a debate with me on whether or not the Bible is a giant metaphor, than I am happy to do so at a later date, but that is not a valid position in this one. Back to the debate. My opponent has stated that if God did indeed create the universe(which is in itself a massive, scientifically incorrect assumption), why should he be measured by "your"(scientific) standards? He can apparently do whatever he wants based on his own laws, and therefore is exempt from logical criticism. This argument is effectively a cop-out. If nothing God does makes any sense, such as creating literally everything in the universe in seven days, than he doesn't need to follow logic. He just doesn't. Why? Because he's God, that's why. Here, my opponent has set up a non-falsifiable claim, which is classified as nonscientific. You can't just invent new rules for yourself if you can't comply with the existing ones. My opponent continues. He reiterates that judging God by laws of reality which he's apparently magically exempt from, based on zero scientific evidence, is "wrong". He gives no evidence for why I'm wrong. He simply states I'm wrong. He then asks if I can verify empirically that God cannot do anything stated in the Bible. Here my opponent missteps and commits the burden of proof logical fallacy. It is up to those on the proposition to prove that God can, scientifically, do something, not up to me to disprove it. If, for example, I said that there was, at this instant, a teapot in orbit around Mars, you couldn't really disprove it, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically true. I'd have to actually provide compelling logical evidence for the teapot's existence before you needed to mount an argument against it. My opponent again says that as God is, "of course", omnipotent(Again, massive assumption), he can do whatever he wants regardless of logic and reason. Again, this is a cop-out that I've already addressed. My opponent concludes with a contemptuous, " I simply cannot wade through your mundane list of contradictions.", rounding out his general theme of imperious contempt for my arguments. He then suggests that I should integrate his criticisms into my arguments, which I will not do as their validity still stands. In conclusion, you, voters, should vote for the opposition.