The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

I probably shouldn't have taken on a debate during Memorial Day Weekend lol - I'm far too busy to put forth an amazing rebuttal. However anyone who's read the last round can see that it's not really necessary for me to do so; all I have to do is point out the flaws in my opponent's case. His argument basically boils down to 2 key points: 1) Science cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the metaphysics of the Bible are impossible. Besides, it wouldn't be relevant considering "[If Genesis were not literal], it could appear to undermine God's authority and ability. This would give flaw to the representation of God." He basically says that we ought to believe God could do everything written in Gensis simply because God is defined as being able to do so. This is a terrible argument; it offers not a shred of evidence or proof but merely suggests we should believe it simply because Christians believe it. Throughout the last round my opponent proposed several fallacious arguments regarding this point, such as when he said "God created everything and can do everything as clearly stated throughout the Bible." This is using circular reasoning. He's trying to use the Bible to validate itself. This is a logical fallacy. Even though science is imperfect, it relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method to offer credibility. This argument is the complete opposite, and suggests we should believe in God's powers simply because God is defined as having those powers. Does that mean we should believe Santa can fly around the world in one night because he's described as doing as such? No. 2) Pro says that the the "days" described in the Bible do not refer to literal days. This argument of course negates the resolution in itself. If the "days" described were not 'literal' days -- what 'days' refer to -- then the Bible should not be taken literally. In fact my opponent describes how the "days" refer to mere periods of light and darkness, which means he admits that it's essentially a metaphor. Pro hasn't given us any evidence, proof or justifiable reasoning to believe that all of the extraordinary things described in Genesis are credible. He says we should accept it as to not undermine God's authority, or accept it being something not literal... in order words he's already negated his own case. As for my case, I'll be brief because I literally have 5 minutes to write this. There are a ton of historical creation myths. The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren't isolated from other cultures and they didn't get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism [1, 2]. We have proof of this -- I'll provide more evidence in the next round if need-be. The point is that various creation myths exist from a bunch of cultures, and have been mixed and infused with a bunch of different stories. Are they all true? Which parts are true? So many questions but I'll stop and let Pro respond before going on. Because this is a 5 round debate, I reserve the right to introduce more evidence or problems in the next round. There are more other problems aside from the literal day vs. night dilemma. [1] http://www.usbible.com... [2] http://www.cs.williams.edu...