Literal biblical creation is unbelievable.

My opponent seems unwilling even to discuss the matter, which is disappointing. I will follow his request regardless. Chapter 1 1) The creation of light. I'm not going to repost what I said last round but I offer the contention that evening and morning without the sun IS a logical impossibility. 2) I already stated that waters above the earth is gravitationally impossible, logically impossible too. 3) I'll scratch this part, although it still points strongly to the bible being of human construction as I said. Chapter 2 1) Creating Eve from a rib is also logically impossible, only cloning would be an explanation that fit with observable reality. If Eve were a clone then her genetic make up would be identical to Adam and there would be no way of meiosis contributing to variability. Consequently all offspring of this couple would be almost identical. 2) Genesis reads, in its early stages, as chronological account. It is made quite clear that God created man and woman on day 6, then sanctified the 7th and created man again the next day. If a literal interpretation is taken then either there were two Adams and two Eves or one of the days is wrong. If something is wrong in the account then it cannot be taken literally. Chapter 3 1) Snakes are unequipped to produce speech. Their tongues, palette and teeth (those snakes that have them) do not allow for the complex movements required to make the plethora of consonant sounds humans can produce. Eve clearly takes part in a conversation with this snake - a logical impossibility. 2) I'll admit I was just having fun with this one. Ignore it. Chapter 4 1) Cain's wife is a logical impossibility since a literal interpretation means that the only people on earth are Adam, Eve and Cain prior to this moment. The only way this can be possible is if unmentioned offspring of Adam and Eve are brought into the story, however since a literal interpretation does not allow us to add information to the account it remains a logical impossibility. 2) A city is a conurbation which can only exist on an agricultural surplus, this surplus is necessary in order to feed the specialists upon which a city depends - the craftsmen and traders who do not have the time to farm. A city requires government and organization, these people also will live off the agricultural surplus. The city of Enoch could not have had such a surplus as the population was far too small to provide it, the population was also far too small to allow any man to become a specialist and is therefore logically impossible. My opponent has so far not offered a single rebuttal, choosing semantics over genuine discourse. If he wishes to win by semantics that is fine of course (technically, the fact that people DO believe a literal account of genesis as historical fact makes my position difficult). However, I believe that my original post makes clear what my position actually is. If I could change the resolution it would read more like this excerpt from my OP: "Believing in a literal interpretation of genesis as an historical fact is an absurd position for any educated person to take." (Note to self: Next time don't choose a sound bite for a resolution.)