Those who seek for the truth should study the Bible

Thank you for your timely response.My opponent stated that morality had nothing to do with his premise's. I submit they do; If the bible is truth, then our so called inner moral code helps us determine what path to follow i.e what action is in line with Gods truth. If not why do we have an "inner moral code".I thank my opponent for his succinct points of his first and last premise. The first one "fits with the facts," I still contest that it is a rehash of not only the last one but now of the third one as well. "In harmony with our established knowledge". The last premise; What is practical is another way to say what's convenient, and what's convenient is what's so called conventional knowledge i.e known put in a fancy arguments that established itself as fact - fits in with the facts. This is to illustrate that most of the premises aren't mutually exclusive. Acknowledging the second premise; I am going to call it a lie. As I have called the bible in previous arguments. An internally consist lie is not truth.We must note what "facts" my opponent is talking of in his premises. One can only assume as it isn't stated directly. The facts of natural laws or species as observed by humans. Their are many "events" in the bible that defy natural laws. Moses parting the Red Sea, only one language as written by Moses, and then a confusion of that one language by the lord, the ten plagues occurrence, the making of a golden calf, the story of dipping in the Jordan several times to cure lepersy. There are many stories where God is involved. Why should we accept those; As they cannot be proven? My opponents argument essentially is because some parts are ofthe bible true and make sense it's all true and all makes sense. That is fallacious logic.Now to the previous arguments. 1.) Slavery :This brings us to the moral code argument. If we have an inner moral code as asserted by my opponent as fact. Consider that in the scriptures it talks of men following the bibles word. It still leaves us with the problem: Whether they were right in keeping slaves and were in fact following the word of God. The men and women who fought bravely in a war one to determine and extend free will to slaves - the civil war. A God given gift - free will.If God gives that to you is man wrong to try and take it away? I would submit yes. The practice of slavery commits idolatry: Bowing to someone's will other than Gods. it's all very convoluted and confusing because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's my point it's all very contradictory.2.) Women: My opponent doesn't address my argument but instead ignores it and presents an alternative that satisfies his. It doesn't negate mine. And it illustrates why the 2nd premise fails of being consistent. It states to honor your mother but covertly telling you she is an object, a tool, property undermining that same statement in the same 10 commandments.3.) Homosexuality:The analogy is not a very nice one, and is malicious and mean spirited. It takes smoking something that 1.) someone chooses 2.) becomes addicted to 3.) severe health hazards that occur if continued and relates it to being gay. This is an appeal to emotion veiled in a fallacious analogy. The appeal being the social stigma that occurs from being gay a very valid concern and the threat of potential death. It concerns non homosexuals mainly those who follow the bible because they want the social stigma to continue to pound people into submission to enslave them into thoughts not their own. I digress. From reading my opponents statements. concerning homosexuality it sounds like some sort of greater sin that requires harsher punishment? Under my opponents heading "homosexuality" no argument is made (until ironically the conclusion) It sounds mostly like justification of actions. It is important because it implies an answer was thought up because the facts do not fit in accord with the belief.I notice my opponent said "we" here in his conclusion. I ask him: Was there a meeting of some sort? I highly suspect my opponent does not speak for every person who follows the supposed good book. That is just a very transparent way of patronizing someone. My opponent said smoking repulsed him. And he equated it to homosexuality. The only logical conclusion is that homosexuality repulses him - the idea of two men together. My opponent has a sexual orientation - straight (I assume) - his analogy postulates that he can change it at will, but this is highly suspect because of the idea of two men being together repulses him. What about the idea of himself an another man? Sexual orientation is not a choice. My opponent cannot help but be repulsed by another man. Justifications are arguments to understand feelings that just happen i.e. it's unnatural, or it's a sin. The first one is self defeating as it happens in nature, and the second is what we're arguing. Its my opponents nature to like women; just like it's mine to like men.3.) Third Premise: We have a concession: "the bible doesn't conflict with living things adapting to their environment". That is evolution by any other name. I would also note here my opponent did not dispute my linking established and accepted. I had asked my opponent to define terms he deemed relevant. Terms not defined were left to me.My argument here is that there only be a dispute to negate the premise. Simply saying the dispute is not valid because of human observation, which you hailed in another argument, is not good enough. We have built machines for calculation and observation. All we do is interpret the facts presented. Do you mean our interpretation is wrong? How man came to be through evolution is a disputed fact primarily by those asserting that God created Man. Conclusion: I am not sure what my opponent meant by "falsifiable," but if he was in fact quoting me then that is a concession as well. My opponent has failed to hold the bible up to his standard of truth. I extend my arguments made. in my first rounds thank you.