The Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge and information.

Note: This is a rebuttal of my opponent's points. You probably want to follow along with his second round of arguments to understand what I'm saying. Thanks. My opponent starts with a bang ... or something like that. "You, sir, are the embodiment of the new atheist." I think I'm supposed to be insulted, but to be honest, his opening is just a statement of fact. Thanks? My opponent continues, and for the next paragraph proceeds to psychoanalyze me, saying I have fundamental flaws in my thought(and keep in mind this comes from someone arguing that the Bible is scientifically accurate), fueled by insecurities and a desire to look different. I'm not sure what this poor attempt at psychoanalyzing your opponent does for you, but feel free to continue. Apparently I embarrass my own school of thought(even though I supposedly also embody it. My ideology embarrasses itself, apparently.) Thank you, random debater on the Internet, for diagnosing my personal problems and ideological issues. Would you like to discuss my love life as well? My opponent goes on to insult my proofreading(again, seriously?), and mock my language. After this, he says, " I found it strange that by labelling my otherwise quite sincere refutations of your argumentation techniques as 'petty insults' you are in turn falling at the hurdle of 'as hominem' which you so aggressively took issue with." (Note that directly after criticizing my proofreading, my opponent misspells "labeling' and 'ad hominem'.) I do need to clarify. I'm not calling whatever rebuttals you may have petty insults. I'm calling your constant denigration of my technique petty insults. My opponent then clarifies that his taking issue with my technique isn't ad hominem(debatable based on intent to distract from substantive points via petty criticism) by giving me an actual ad hominem. I think that he may have missed the point here. My opponent now makes his first substantive point: around half my debate was concerned with something I deemed as 'irrelevant'. True enough, but there's no real harm done. In future I'll try to be more succinct. He then ruins his decent point by turning it into a cheap opportunity to shame me. He follows this insult(scathing, I'm sure) with, "Yet, still, how is the discussion of the content of the Bible ' completely irrelevant' to a debate concerned with the content of the Bible?!" This is a broad over-generalization of the debate. Whether or not the Bible is a set of moral teachings is totally irrelevant to whether or not the Bible is scientifically accurate. My opponent again criticizes a slight grammatical error(in a mocking tone, of course), and literally criticizes my username, of all things. Is this really substantive debating? I'm growing seriously tired of this. My opponent continues(*sigh*), "It seems that everything to you needs scientific fact(This is a debate about scientific fact!), indeed that is what your argument has suggested hitherto, yet you have made an assumption which has no scientific backing whatsoever. You have declared something 'wrong' with no empirical backing. You have labelled the hypothetical situation of God creating the Universe as scientifically wrong." Umm ... Yeah. Pretty much. Modern science totally disputes the idea that a sky ruler created everything that has ever existed in seven days(and in two different, contradictory orders(see my first argument). There isn't an emerging scientific consensus in favor of Creationism. Far from it, a massive ninety-three percent(Gallup poll) of scientists are atheists. If that doesn't tell you something about religion and science, I don't know what does. My opponent says that the majority of modern science allows that God could have created the universe. What? Where did you find that number? (And don't cite a theological website.) He says that if God didn't create the universe, what did? I don't know! I just don't pretend to know either. Besides, that argument could be used for anything.("Well, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, than what did? Hah! Got you!") "Most would agree that it is more rational to suppose something created the universe rather than nothing?" Yeah, I'm with you. But, again, I don't pretend to know what did. "To pre-empt your inevitable 'Big-Bang' retort I would like to cite St Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Argument:..." Yeah, no Big Bang retort from me. Besides, this argument is completely irrelevant. Attempting to prove that the hypothetical existence of God could happen, maybe, has nothing to do with the scientific accuracy of the Bible. This argument also contradicts itself, but I'm going to follow my opponent's earlier advice and not waste time disputing it, as, again, it's completely irrelevant. My opponent tries to condescend to me one last time, and closes his arguments. "We could prove a teapot was orbiting Mars." That's not the point. What I'm trying to say via my earlier metaphor is that being unable to disprove something does not make it automatically true. "God doesn't have to follow 'logic'(note the quotation marks around logic) because 'logic' is a human concept and he is God. They're not my standards, they're the standards one would attach to the God of classical theism." I've already rebutted this. God does not have a free pass from logic simply because he's God. That's not how science works. You can't just insert exceptions as you please. "He's not exempt from logical criticism, just because he can do whatever he wants. We can 'logically criticise' Kim Jong-un, can we not?" Two things. For one, two sentences after saying "God doesn't have to follow 'logic'", my opponent says "He's not exempt from logical criticism." I guess he does agree with me after all! Two, my opponent totally misinterprets what I was saying, which is that God cannot do what he wants exempt from logical criticism simply because he's God. What my opponent got out of that is fairly mangled and not what I was saying at all. Apparently, I need to be clearer to get my points through to my opponent. Please vote for the opposition. I think that my opponents' points(and constant Ad Hominems) illustrate why better than I can put into words. I'm going to conclude by again saying something that will no doubt irritate my opponent(sorry to be "mundane"), back to the debate.