The Genesis account was written to be interpreted literally

Violation of Debate Structure:Con has violated the debate structure that I set in Round 1. I explicitly stated that Round 3 would be where"Pro rebuts Con's argument in Round 2 and vice versa "However in Round 2 Con immediately sets to refuting my case. Voters should consider this when casting their vote.Rebuttal:I will not address this until Round 4 where counter rebuttals are set.Figures of Speech:Con asserts that on day one where God separates light from darkness as a figure of speech meant to state that he created day and night. He disregards the very next verse Genesis 1:5 which stated that "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. " The point being that Bible actually did mean that God separated light and darkness and called them night and day.As to his second assertion, Con hasn't stated what verse in the book of Genesis he is referring to. He might be referring to Genesis 1:5 and if so, I have no clue as to what translation you are using as both NIV and KJV don't use that language.On to Con's third verse. The biggest and most prominent problem with Con's argument here is he forgets the fact that the Bible states that God is omnipotent. It is God who, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." (Psalm 33:6). God can be physical as he is omnipotent and he has become physical as the son of God Jesus took on the form of man. And with the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one. Take for example John 10:30 "I and the Father are one ".Again with your last argument. You do not provide the biblical verse where this is stated making it hard to check to see if the Bible actually says it. And when I did check that, it appears you have taken Genesis 2:23 out of context. This is not figurative language as Genesis 2:21-22 state:"21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the manâ€™s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."Here it states that God literally takes the flesh of Adam to create Eve.As I prove here, Con's "figures of speech" aren't a problem for a literal interpretation if you look at their context within the Bible.Genesis Contradictions:Con's assertion that Genesis 1 contradicts with 2 is unfounded as he does not provide specific verses to back up his claims.With Con's argument about Genesis 2:4 he makes the mistake of taking the short phrase from the verse out of context. Here is what the full verse states:"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"What Con also forgets is that there are multiple definitions and meanings of "day". The verse makes much more sense if the definition meaning time period as in "Back in my day, ___________". Contradiction #4: You forget that the Bible also teaches the Trinity which I have already discussed with God being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not to mention that there was also the existence of angels. Biblical lifetimes: There is no indication that God would carry this out immediately, however you do see the decline in lifetimes as you progress forward in biblical chronology. Scholars’ Analysis: Your arguments here are nothing but bare assertions. You claim that Paul stated that Genesis was not literal, yet you do not provide Bible verses to back this up. The same applies to the biblical icons and church officials you name. You provide no proof that this is actually what they believe. Conclusion: Con arguments hinges on misusing the text of the Bible by taking them out of context and displays a lack of knowledge of basic biblical doctrines. Sources: The Holy Bible (NIV)