The Bible and REAL science harmonize

I would like to clarify that the BoP is mine in this debate. Age of the Earth. As far as I can tell, my opponent does not disagree with science's assessment of the age of the Earth. My opponent is instead trying to argue that an Earth that is 4.54 billion years does NOT contradict the Bible. In order to do this, he argues that when the Bible refers to a "day" it is not actually referring to a 24 hour period, and therefore we can not evaluate the age that the Bible gives to Earth. This seems to contradict what my opponent said in the comments: "It most certainly is! I am not a creationist, by the way. But I do take Genesis literally. " Since the definition of day is the length that separates two nights (in the case of earth, 24 hour), a literal interpretation of the Bible should necessarily lead to the conclusion that God created the world in six 24 hour periods. Plus Genesis 1 says that God called the light "day" and the darkness "night", which pretty much leaves no room for interpretation. But let's say that a "day" could actually mean around 750 million years (which is what it would need to be), this raises some problems. First, it would mean that God created plants WAY before he created the sun, but we know that plants need the Sun in order to survive, so this contradicts science. Second, it would also mean that Adam and Eve lived for millions of year, which also contradicts science. I would also point out that Genesis claims that the Earth is OLDER than the Sun, which contradicts scientific findings (. http://curiosity.discovery.com...).Evolution.My opponent points to some gap in the theory of evolution, which I won't address because whether or not the theory is "complete" is irrelevant; the current scientific consensus is that evolution did occur. Many other theories are incomplete: the Big Bang theory has gaps, the theory of gravity has MANY gaps, etc. The fact that a theory is not perfect is not a good reason to reject it, it is an invitation to continue the investigation. My opponent claims that since evolution does not account for everything, it is not scientific, but that is not the way science works. Science supports what the data supports, and the data HEAVILY points to evolution being accurate (fossils, DNA, lab experiments, etc. ). The flood and Noah's ark. First of all, whether or not a "day" is 24 hours or 750 million years, I think we can agree that a year is roughly 365*24 hours, which means that (according to the Bible) the flood occurred around 4000 years. Now, not only does this contradict the age of the trees I mentioned in the first part, it also makes irrelevant the claim that "scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present", since mountains do not really change in 4000 years (mount Everest grows by .25 inch per year). So, considering this, we are still left with the problem that we need 100 times more water than we currently have. "Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep. " I am not sure what my opponent means by "dumping all this land evenly" but that is irrelevant since the Earth of 4000 years ago was practically IDENTICAL to the Earth today, and I am pretty sure that we can agree that we are not currently under a mile of water. My opponent then spends half of the following paragraph answering a question that he asks himself, so I will not try to refute that. "In Genesis 6:20 it is clear that the animals came to Noah". Okay, but how? We know that there were animals in the Americas and in Australia (based on the fossil record) and I honestly do not know how they could possibly cross the Ocean in order to get to Noah. As for the issue of going BACK to Australia an the Americas, my opponent says this: "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. " Not only is there NO evidence for an Ice Age occurring 4000 years ago, this only tells us WHY the animals decided to go back to their homeland, not HOW. And if my opponent decides to play the "ice bridge" card, I am going to have to force the point that there is NO evidence to support such an Ice Age. I await my opponent's response.