The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal!

Thanks! Today we will debate about: The seven day creation in Genesis 1 is literal! My arguement: I can imagine a few arguements my opponent may propose but I can not know her complete arguement so I will only offer my own interpretation of Genesis 1. Most actually consider that if they take the seven day creation story then that means the earth can not be billions of years old. This is not the case at all. In Genesis 1:1 we see God creates all time, space, and matter. In Genesis 1:2 the matter is formless and void, not a typical description when describing something that God has created. If God created everything and can do everything as clearly stated throughout the Bible. Then creating the earth in six days is very possible. Do you all actually consider what it takes to make this creation? God has to know alot of things from everything on the scientific scale to the artistic. God created and set the laws for all things within what we know as creation. Though in a scientific point of view it is uncapable of being true. Why? Can things outside emperical physical evidence be true? I know they can. Many exsperience such things throughout history even till today. This lore is talked about since acient times. Doesn't lore start somewhere? Science is outside its emperical bounds to study and hypothosis in terms of Meta-physical, supernatural, and spiritual. Nor can they deny their existance because they are unable to exsplain it. In the end only people who hold the Bible as guidance and true literal facts and not just poetic words then we start to understand its real meanings. By not taking the literal description in Genesis 1 then it must be considered a metaphor. The Bible does have many metaphors from Genesis to Revelations. Though if we give the creation account as Christians a symbolisim as just metaphric then we take away from the actual signifiance of it. This plays into questions as, do you actually believe the Word of God at all? The creation account should be took as a narrative to a actual and literal event. In this description by just the narrative, gives a true literal interpretation. KJV-R (Webster) Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkenss he called Night. And evening and the morning were called the first day. What is this 'evening and morning' refering about throughout Genesis 1? God has no night or evening or morning within His kingdom nor does He need darkness. So God speaking of darkenss, He was literally refering about the earth being incapable of having light. And when He speaks of days in Genesis 1, it is literally earth's days. The Bible clearly states a visual, " And the evening and the morning," which refers to our 24 hour days. We see that: KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 21:23 KJV-R And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Webster) Revelation 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. KJV-R (Webster) Revelation 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like to a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; The sun had always been shining brightly and God allowed the sun to penetrate to the surface. The entire creation of all time was described within the first two chapters of Genesis. We must remember that even though God is beyond the earth, universe, and all creation, He can always be within creation. This would be the case in the creation description as Gods reveals himself as though He is upon or within the earth. Another reason why the six day theory must be literal is because if it is not, It could appear to undermine God's authority and ability. This would give flaw to the representation of God. This description of creation reveals personnel and unique. Would God put so much effort to apply seven earth days for it not to be literal? I do not think so. The heavy importance to display our six earth days signals literal. Here we read: KJV-R (Webster) Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. KJV-R (Webster) Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. KJV-R (Webster) Hebrews 4:4 For he spoke in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Clearly the interpretations here show that the six day creation was in fact literal. Here we read God reminding Israel that He created the earth in six days and rested. These verses give much credence to God literally meaning six and seven actual earth days. There is only 181 OT verses and 24 NT verses that deals with ordinal numbers with the word 'day. ' A ordinal number is the order of items described. In these 205 verses only 1 is not literal days and this verse is not in Genesis 1. There is no reason to interpret Genesis 1 as anything but seven literal days. Reasons: 1. The author of Genesis is Moses. Moses uses the word 'day' many times and usually it deals with a ordinal number. Not once was 'day' ever used by Moses to mean long periods. Why does it mean something else here? 2. Genesis, Exodus, and Hebrews are historical and doctrinal. There are 90 verses of history and doctrine that include 'day. ' Every one of them refers to literal days. With the many verses that are interpretated as earth days, Why should it not be took literally here? 3. If the seven creation days is not literal then it undermines God's authority. 4. It undermines the signifinance of the act. Leading to not holding it sacred. 5. Can a scientist and emperical evidence claim to say metaphyics are impossible? References: The Bible (King James version) . http://www.keyway.ca... . http://bibleview.org... . http://www.usbible.com... . http://www.gospelway.com... . http://www.hebrew4christians.com...