The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Age of the Earth.Yes, this seems as an obvious contradiction with science, and I did, in fact, predict it would come up. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches the Earth is about 6,000 years old if we just read the creation story in Genesis. The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with Christian Fundamentalists and many creationists.The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day (Genesis 2:4). In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5). Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long. Evolution.Correct. The question here is whether science supports this theory or not. Understand that the Bible does not contradict adaptation. In fact, God has given us the ability to adapt, and when something adapts enough, eventually the species can change, and science has observed this. The theory of evolution claims Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. So first these organic molecules were formed, replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection, and through this process eventually simple cells were made. First of all, it is unknown how exactly molecules just randomly decided to replicate. Could it be natural selection? To accept that as a possibility you would have to give natural selection a power that it does not have, one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists. In an experiment simulating the old earth’s atmosphere RNA was made, and DNA evolved from RNA. So what about mutations? Could favorable mutations be the explanation of the first cells, and eventually the complex variety of life we have now? Talking about mutations requires a very large ammount of space and there's not enough characters remaining (I tried). We can talk about this with more detail on the next round. But for molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism’s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help. There have been few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite, organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain? There's too many gaps scientists have to fill before I consider this as REAL science.The flood and Noah's ark.I expected this "science contradiction" as well. According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: “Here I (Jehovah) am bringing the deluge (or, “heavenly ocean”l of waters upon the earth.” (Ge 6:17, ftn) Describing what happened, the next chapter says: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Genesis 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered." (Genesis 7:19). Where did this “heavenly ocean” come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second “day” Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called “Heaven”) formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Genesis 1:6-8). The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second “day” of creation until the Flood. Since, as the Genesis account says, “all the tall mountains” were covered with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105). How would marine life survive such an adventure? Well, most marine life didn't survive, and the Bible doesn't suggest this. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which we Jehovah's Witnesses accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. In Genesis 6:20 it is clear that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. So, the animals' recolonization was determined by God, not left to chance. Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher suggested an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions from the mountainous region known as Ararat.Keep in mind that because science may not suggest something in the Bible to be true, such as the miracles, these do not contradict the established scientific facts, and science can not really disprove them if it cannot disprove God first. I look forward to my adversary's response.