God is Both Religious and Scientific

I thoroughly hope to make this a productive debate and an enjoyable experience for my opponent. In that regard, from now on, we will be debating the resolution: "God's existence and a literal interpretation of the Bible do not conflict with established science." She is still pro, and I am still con (I will argue that one or both of these two things DO conflict with established science). Arguments should resort to logic or quotes from the Bible; we should not be asked to fill in deficiencies in arguments by taking something "on faith." I assume this means that my opponent now acknowledges that the God we are debating about is the Judeo-Christian God (the God of the Bible). She cannot refuse to debate this God because it is impossible for me to debate some indefinite entity with no established characteristics; I need to know whether her God is omniscient, for example. I will be presenting new arguments, specifically in regards to evolution. I do so because we now have agreed on a new topic. It is unfortunate that my opponent only has one round remaining to establish her BOP, but she should have waited for me to agree to a topic change in the comments section if she wanted to have two rounds for the new topic. Since it's a new topic, I'll be offering new arguments, specifically in regards to evolution. Addressing the old arguments first, however: 1. God's existence Philosophy and logic are part of the "natural sciences." If my opponent cannot refute my two logical proofs that an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot exist, then God's existence would be said to conflict with established science. 2. The Big Bang My opponent says that I may be using two different measurements of time. However, both units are in human standard years. The age of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang Theory and measured by the redshifting of light is 14 billion years. My opponent makes a common mistake in asserting that the units are "light years;" however, light years measure distance (the distance that light travels in a year is a light year). 14 billion years is normal, standard human years (365 days). In addition, the units for the Biblical estimates are also 6000 normal, standard, human years. From the source I already cited, 6000 years comes from 2 estimates: the Bible mentions that Adam is approximately 6000 years old, and Archbishop James Ussher used the text of the Bible to come up with exact dates for when certain individuals (like Moses) lived, and using the lineages enumerated in the Bible, calculated creation as occurring in 4004 B.C. [1] However, creation cannot have occurred 6000 years ago if the universe is actually 14 billion years old. In addition, my opponent agreed to a literal interpretation of the Bible. According to Princeton's Wordnet, "literal" means "without interpretation or embellishment; limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text." My opponent is thus not allowed to argue, for example, that if the Bible says "day," it is a metaphorical day that could have lasted hundreds of millions of years. This is a metaphorical, not a literal, interpretation of the Bible. New arguments: 3. Age of the Earth Using radioisotope dating, scientists have estimated the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. [2] Radioisotope dating works because rocks naturally contain a certain amount of radioactive elements. These radioactive isotopes decay at constant rates. Chemists have established the half-life for all of these radioactive isotopes, meaning the amount of time it takes for 50% of the radioactive atoms in the sample to "decay" into non-radioactive atoms. These half-lives are entirely predictable and constant. Established geology and chemistry also contradicts the Bible's claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, since both combine to show that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. 4. Evolution According to the Book of Genesis, God created the atmosphere on day 2 of Creation, before creating life. [3] However, life actually preceded the creation of the atmosphere. The Earth's early atmosphere did not contain enough oxygen to sustain modern life forms; the oxygen was brought about by early photosynthetic life forms. We know that the early Earth did not contain oxygen because metals contained in the oldest rock layers are un-oxidized (oxidization of metal can only occur in the presence of oxygen). In addition, fossils of the oldest life forms show that they are anaerobic, meaning that they could live without oxygen. [4] Also, according to Genesis, on the second day, God created "seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees," and on the fourth day of Creation, God created the "great sea-creatures and every breath of living, moving creature with which the waters teem, according to their proper kind, and every winged bird." [5] However, according to the fossil record, sea creatures existed before plants. Also, if God created all the birds at the same time, then Darwin's original observation that the beaks of Galapogos finches evolved to match different types of food sources was wrong. The Bible and evolution are inherently contradictory. I eagerly await my opponent's response. [1] http://www.creationtips.com... [2] http://www.dummies.com... [3] http://www.answersincreation.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://wsu.edu...