(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)

I will now create a rebuttal of my own. While I appreciate that Pro was focusing on the Christian perspective of creationism, I believe he over-specified in that area. His main argument consisted of first stating what he believes to be true about evolution, and then proceeded to list all the reasons the Christian Bible cannot possibly be correct. The main problem with that sort of argument is simple: The Bible does not have to be correct for creationism to exist. It is perfectly possible that perhaps the entire Bible, or at least the majority of it, is mistaken, and that it has no place in the field, of science, as my opponent appears to believe. But even given the above, evolution is no more a legitimate theory than before, and creationism no less. Why couldn't some other god (like the god of the Hindus or the Indians) have created all of existence? The debate is about whether evolution or creationism is the more valid theory. Pro didn't make an argument for evolution using scientific data, or explain why it was a more valid theory than creationism (or "obliterate" creationism"). He merely stated how he believed evolution, abiogenesis, etc. , happened (without presenting any real proof other than his first two sources) and then went on to point out all the reasons the Bible is wrong and cannot be valid. And did anyone else notice that when he mentioned portions of the Bible, he never once mentioned the actual story of Creation? He had plenty to say about Noah's Ark, and God's approval of slavery, but didn't mention "let there be light" or "let us make man in our own image" Because of this, I personally believe his argument contained little weight. That is, as far as the topic of this debate is concerned. But his accusations against the Bible as a whole certainly have merit. And they can, and should, be addressed. So, I believe I will spend the rest of my allotted character space to refute as many of Pro's points as possible. First of all, Pro states that the Bible maintains the Earth is around 6000 years old, the Earth is flat, etc. I do not deny this. In fact, Pro is quite correct. The problem is, neither of those two ideas are illegitimate, nor are they completely unaccepted. Many people (including Christians) believe in a young earth, and there still are various communities and individuals who believe in a flat Earth. And they are not all loony, mentally disturbed, idiots for that matter, even though some are. For a conversation on why the Earth is (possibly) flat, I strongly recommend you get in touch with Edlvsjd. You'll notice he commented down below. Secondly, Pro is again correct, the Bible is very adult in content, extremely violent, etc. In fact, I am often puzzled as to why some Christian adults are horrified at the thought of their children reading about graphic violence, etc, when the Bible is perfectly "safe". But then again, I don't have children, so. .. I also don't deny that God (and Jesus) ordered many violent acts throughout the Old Testament. I do disagree however, with the idea that such acts are immoral. Why? Because if God is the creator of all things (including morality) then it stands to reason he and he alone decides what is and is not moral. We as humans, aka, the creation, have no right to question the morality of our creator. And I can probably tell you why God is so violent. Because he demands purity, as he cannot tolerate any impure thing. Thus, if we as his creation are impure (which we are, by our own actions), then he is nothing less than just by absolutely annihilating us. But if God forgives us our trespasses, and does not punish as we deserve, then he has shown us mercy. And if he gives us something wonderful, which we also don't deserve, then he has shown us grace. That is why the Jews were/are his chosen people. He showed mercy and grace on the Jews in the Old Testament and justice to many others. Also, with the example of Noah's Ark, he showed justice to those he had slain, and mercy to Noah, as he favored Noah. As for the matter of slavery, I do not consider slavery an immoral thing, as far as the slavery in the Bible was concerned. You must understand, slavery in the Bible was far different then it was in this country many years ago. In the Bible, you were a slave for 7 years maximum, and then were allowed to go free. Since those who were not captured as prisoners of war willingly sold themselves into slavery for a sum of cash, it might be considered more of a binding labor contract than slavery. As for those who were captured in war, should they serve faithfully, they were required by law to receive the same benefits as an Israelite native: 7 years maximum service, and permanent residence in the country afterwards, should they choose to stay. The one exception to the 7-year rule was that of a slave who voluntarily wished to stay with his master. In such a case, the slave would have his ear marked, and become a slave for life. I would also like to point out that Israelite slaves had legal rights, again much different than those in America hundreds of years ago. And please, do not take my word for it. Read the Bible yourself and see if I am correct. Finally, we have the "impossible scenarios" bit. Again, if the Creator of the Universe wishes to do impossible things, he may do them freely. After all, he is the one who created natural laws that would make such tasks impossible. But not being bound by laws of his own creations, he may intervene within them as he pleases. This would allow for Jonah surviving for three days within a fish, or Noah surviving for a year on the ark. Things such as these are what is often referred to as "miracles". Though, miracles also exist within the boundaries of natural law as well, such as events like the story of Ester. This is a fine example of "Divine Conspiracy". This concludes my rebuttal. I believe I have made excellent case for why my opponent argument in favor of evolution was unsound, as well as refute some of his arguments against the soundness of the Bible. Again, I personally think that part belonged in a separate debate, but I certainly don't object to debating that portion, if Pro is thus inclined. Thank you once again for the debate. Thus far, it has been most enjoyable. Round Four should be good as well, and I happily await Pro's defense.