The Bible and REAL science harmonize

In this round, it would seem that I am going to be arguing with websites rather than with an actual opponent, but I don't really mind.Age of the Earth.This subject is pretty much over; whatever I point out my opponent just gives his own interpretation of the text in a way that is acceptable from a scientific point of view, whether he refers to "days" not being actual "days", "beginning" not being the actual "beginning" and "emitting light" not actually "emitting light". I can not argue against that sort of argument, but I will point out a couple of things:- "Days" were considered actual "days" until science demonstrated that this was not the case. That goes for the rest of these interpretations.- The website that my opponent provides for many of his refutations supports the idea that "days" are actual "days".As for the age of Adam and Eve, I just found out that Adam actually died at 930 years old: Genesis 5:5 "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." And I can't help but notice that it refers to "days" in order to get to that number.Evolution."Currently, the evolution theory is the unfalsifiable" This is simply false: all you would need to do in order to disprove evolution would be to find the fossil of a CURRENTLY living species that is over 100 million years old. If today's animals always existed, it should not be that hard, right? But no such fossil has ever been found. "Yes, we see natural speciation through adaptation and come to the conclusion that through the same processes, a few molecules eventually became the complex variety of life there is now." That is an oversimplification, but it is not entirely inaccurate."But do we not also see that everything around us that isn't nature had a creator? Why do we make an exception with nature, which is much more complex?" That question pretty much answers itself: we do not recognize design by complexity, but by contrasting it with nature. If God actually created everything, then it would impossible to distinguish what is and isn't design, since EVERYTHING would be designed. Moreover, this isn't a debate about God (but I am open to have one)."Why do many talk about it like it is a fact, when the truth is we will NEVER observe a single molecule or even an ape becoming a man?" It is considered a fact because the evidence that it actually happened is overwhelming. The argument that we have "never seen" a molecule become a man is ridiculous: we have never seen an atom, and yet the existence of atoms is considered a fact. The transition from ape to man (which is actually a flawed sentence: humans ARE STILL apes) is extensively supported by the fossil record (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...)."The best we can do is come to the most logical conclusion based on the facts" Which is what we did for evolution."The fossil record is an abrupt record missing intermediares, between amphibian and mammals for instance" The thing that most people forget (or don't know) is that, when something dies it VERY RARELY becomes fossilized. But we are lucky enough to have numerous fossils, each of which fits in the theory of evolution. For the evolution of amphibian to mammals, I suggest you read this: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)."And most living things forgot to evolve and look exactly like their counterpart! Why would we expect it was any different with the extinct organisms?" Extinct organisms (that date back millions of years) are very different from what we see today. That goes with what I said about evolution being a falsifiable theory."There are very few arguable cases of favorable mutations, but the truth is that these would have to occur billions of times, and there would have to be few unfavorable mutations for there to be any progress." The video that I recommended addresses this exact point in great detail. "But will I reject a more complete idea and ignore the evidence to accept a theory that not only goes against what I know of science but also against what the Bible teaches? No, and you shouldn't either. " Rejecting evolution IS the result of ignoring evidence. And whether or not a theory goes against the Bible does NOT influence it's validity.The flood and Noah's ark."Well, trees can not survive underwater." The link that my opponent provided regarding this issue contains one the worst argument that I have ever seen:"The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.We see plants today.Therefore plants survived the Flood."This is a classical case of "leading the evidence where you want it to go"; they basically start off with the presupposition that the flood DID happen and then try to link it with what we see today. Furthermore, the site does not address the question of the trees I mentioned, it simply explains how vegetation did not go extinct (with spores on debris and animal excrement, etc.). I would also point out that, on that very page, it says that the Earth is around 6000 years old, and that Noah was 600 years old."Not if God exists. -_- If you are going to make these kinds of arguments, why don't you just mention Jesus' miracles already? Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough before so I will do it now. Assume God exists. Does everything in his book harmonize with science, considering he exists?" I hope that this is a joke, it is basically like saying "assume that magic is real, than Harry Potter and science harmonize". If we have to "assume" that God exists and can intervene at any time in reality, then science goes right out of the window; we can never know whether something is caused by nature or by God and any "cause to consequence" conclusion that we draw based on our observations won't mean anything, since the cause could always be God. Plus there is no evidence that points to the existence of God and therefore I do not see any reason to "assume" that he exists."That link is just an idea of what it looked like IF there was no flood. Therefore, it is irrelevant." This debate is going to be very difficult for me if my opponent is going to reject everything that contradicts his position. The estimation of the continental drift is based on accurate data, and I do not see any reason why a flood would influence the continental drift.Regarding the issue of Egypt and Mesopotamia, my opponent once provides a link to Answers in Genesis. First of all, the link he provided does not address at all the Mesopotamian society. Second of all, I am no historian so I can only provide another link to compete with my opponent's: (http://www.ancient.eu.com...).Before I finish, I just noticed something that my opponent said in Round 3 which I really need to address:"We are debating whether the Bible is in harmony with the established scientific facts." That is incorrect. We are debating whether the Bible is in harmony with SCIENCE, and science is not limited to what we discover using the scientific method. As I said in the first round, science is a METHOD, and to be in harmony with that method is to embrace it's way of acquiring knowledge (making observations and testing the conclusions that you draw based on these observations). Does the Bible do that? No it does not; it makes various claims about the world in a way that is extremely prone to interpretation (as we have seen in this debate) and that is not supported by any evidence. Even if my opponent somehow manages to refute my arguments, it does not grant him the right to say that the Bible is in harmony with science, first he has to demonstrate that the claims in that book are SUPPORTED by evidence, not only that there is a lack of evidence against it.