The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

I must tip my hat to my opponent. I also will Thank her for this debate! My opponent brought up the short time which she has to debate, This can not be a crutch or excuse. Though I am sure time is little for us both, I think we can both can work out a proper debate. She again is appreciated for her time and effort. My opponent took this debate as a agreement to debate the 'seven day creation account', not scientific errors in the Bible. Or the mere speculation of God. Other 'so called' problems of the Bible is not a debate here and it is invalid. If my opponent would like a future debate on such a topic, then I would accept. "His argument basically boils down to 2 key points:" No my arguement boils down to one point, that the seven days of creation described in Genesis 1 is literal! My understanding is that my opponent concedes the literalness provided in Genesis 1 from a biblical standpoint for seven earth days. Though she states: " 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." This is untrue and I never stated as such. The whole point of the debate is that the seven days of creation is took literal by myself. What my opponent should explain is why Gen 1:1-2 are in fact included inside the first day. My interpretation is Gen 1:3-31 are the seven days and not Gen 1:1-2. We see from Gen 1:1 that time began, the heaven was created, and so was the earth. In Gen 1:2, the earth has water, has darkness, and God moved upon the waters and the earth. When God creates something it has purpose and it is perfect in its ways. Though we see the earth is not. It is void and dark. Why? Because the earth became formless and void. We read in other passages within the Bible of the Great War in heaven. Think of the destrcution it would cause not only in the heavens but on the earth. God was simply reanitmating the earth and did so within seven days. So the seven days are in fact literal. My opponent says further, "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." Again my opponent is wrong about my stance. My interpretation is literal. The darkness described would be in the sky and so from the earth you could not see the sun, moon, and stars (think of a scorched sky). God simply allowed light from the sun to pierce through the darkness within the first day. By the fourth day, you could clearly see the sun, moon, and stars. This shows that God was repairing the earth and correcting our atmosphere for living conditons. This also goes to hint that many eons could of past before the earth became formless and void. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent states: "Even though science is imperfect, it relies on empirical evidence and the scientific method to offer credibility." I agree science has worth for belief by its testing and method. Though creditablitiy does not make something true or untrue, just possible by a educated hypothesis. In a article posted below we read: "The Bible is not a science book and it can not claim as such. Though I am not aware of scientific claims that contradicts the Bible. Science in its very nature, is not capable of proving the non-existance of anything. You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, Santa Claus for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science hasn't proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference. Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world." http://www.str.org... My opponent asserts that: "This argument is the complete opposite, and suggests we should believe in God's powers simply because God is defined as having those powers." Yes God is defined as having those powers and nobody still has showed evidence that this is not the case. I refer back to my arguement in round 2, as for the verification that Genesis 1 is literal. My opponent has offered no reason to suggest that the seven days of creation is not literal, except that God does not exist, which is not any verifiable reason, because she can not prove He does not exist. Mt opponent has failed to show why the described Chapter in Genesis is not literal. She will try to bring up why God does not exist, this drives the debate off topic. This is not a debate about God's existance nor is it my burden to prove his existance. If my opponent offers reasons within the Bible itself why Genesis 1 is not literal then that would be fair. Though if she continues on the course of trying to bring the debate off topic, I must ask points be took from her. References: Holy Bible (King James Version) http://www.christiancourier.com... http://www.youtube.com...