Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Your knowledge of science is deplorable Troy! Didn't you know about all this? Okay, I will explain.Scientists have received images of space, and the stars, that have been taken by the Hubble to learn about the universe, and have used these images of stars, the oldest white dwarf stars, is in the globular cluster M4. Astronomers also selected the closest globular cluster to Earth. M4 is 5,600 light-years away. Conceptually, the age-dating observation is as simple as estimating how long ago a campfire was burning by measuring the temperature of the smoldering coals. In this Hubble observation, the "coals" are white dwarf stars, the burned-out remnants of the earliest stars that formed in our galaxy. Hot, dense spheres of carbon "ash" left behind by the long-dead star's nuclear furnace, white dwarfs cool down at a predictable rate - the older the dwarf, the cooler it is, making it a perfect "clock" that has been ticking for almost as long as the universe has existed. This is a way find out the universes age, which is very old.To explain your question of how we see the star's light, here it is:The sun is huge, yet appears so small in the sky because it is extremely far away and since it is, the light that it emits will actually take 8 minutes to reach the Earth because of it's distance. Light only travels 186000 mi/sec, so it would take a lot of time to travel through far distances in space. The stars you see in the sky are much like the sun, but some are even larger, like 100 times larger or even 1000 times larger. (As you may already know) And when you see them, they would only appear as small, tiny specks of light. This means that they are very far, far away, and I mean VERY far away which leaves an awful lot of distance for the light to travel. The fact that we could see the stars is because the light has taken millions of years to reach us, okay? The earliest European cave paintings date to the Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago. These old paintings have been analyzed by experts, and there is no denying their extremely old age. It would take more than 6000 years to get the ancient cave paintings as aged they look now. To your comment that questions my viability of evidence,Most of the 'proof' I have provided is extremely viable, thank you very much.God is male because, Jesus referred to him as "Father," and we all know that a father is not female and clearly, you don't understand the bible and it's sexism because in it, it says "A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7) Hence is why god made Adam from dirt, and Eve from Adam's rib. And also: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Cor. 14:34)And not to mention: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14) And also: "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off." (1 Cor. 11:6) This proves to show how offensive the bible is to women.Your excuses to defend these offensive verses in the bible will furthermore deeply offend feminists and their beliefs, these are words from the bible. And the bible is what you support. The reason why men has accomplished so much is because they always kept their wives locked up in the house to cook and clean, so they never got to do anything. Just please keep in mind that your comments to women are a bit sexist. Anyone with basic knowledge of the bible knows that Eve was made the transgressor in the bible and was the one who sinned. Adam is made the goody two-shoes because he, (Who represents all men) didn't give in to temptation and yet Eve (Who represents all women) did give in to temptation and easily got deceived by the serpent which made god angry, that eventually caused human suffering and sin.This gave men a reason to hate women, but women were still mistreated before-hand. This sends a message that shows that the bible clearly sees women as lesser beings. Don't you think this would be offensive? But this is not surprising, because the bible was made by men, for men, in a male dominated society. For your response from the bible verse about slavery, I'll have you know that this is the bible we're talking about here, which is in your case, "the word of god." But god is supposed to be a perfect, all knowing being, with wiseness beyond boundary. He would know better then to condone taking control of people's lives and rights, and beating them.Take this verse for example of beating slaves: When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) If God didn't find this immoral, then no one would, I guess it's safe to say we know better. Perhaps the bible was man-made after all.