The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Age of the Earth.My opponent is clinging to the idea that a day does not mean an actual. Unfortunately, there is not much I can say against the "it's a metaphor" argument, except that we agreed to take Genesis literally.My opponent claims that the Sun was created on the first day, but Genesis clearly states that it was created on the FOURTH day: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."This also raises the problem that there apparently was light before the stars and the Sun. There is also the fact that the Moon is referred to as a LIGHT, whereas we know the the Moon does not actually emit any light (it is only the reflection of the Sun)."Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, and nothing in the Bible really suggests that they lived for millions of years." Actually, if we consider that the days are around 750 millions years long, coupled with the "fact" that Adam and Eve are still alive after the seventh day, the logical conclusion is that they indeed lived for millions of years. Plus, according to Answers in Genesis, there was no death before the fall, which could mean that they lived for millions of years (but which still contradicts science)."Again, even if this was the case, you can not disprove it until you disprove God," God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (and therefore not a scientific one), which means that it can NEVER be disproved.Evolution.My opponent seems to be hinting at a conspiracy theory regarding the theory of evolution, as if the theory of evolution's sole purpose was to "disprove" God. Again, I do not really know how to address this except by pointing out that the VAST majority of theists (around the globe) actually believe the theory of evolution, they simply say that it is governed by God.Since my opponent enjoys playing the "link game", I will play along with him:http://anthro.palomar.edu...http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (this whole website is pretty interesting)http://www.actionbioscience.org...http://humanorigins.si.edu...(This last one is my personal favorite, watched it many times)Now, most of the flaws that my opponent present are formed as "evolution can't explain this" or "we don't know how this is possible". As I have said before, the fact that a theory is not complete is NOT a good reason to reject it.The flood and Noah's ark."Correct, the flood occurred about 4,000 years ago. How does this contradict the age of the trees?" Well, trees can not survive underwater."Like I said in the previous round, during the flood, mountains were pushed up from under the seas." Setting aside that this is not supported by any scientific evidence, how does this relate to the trees?"The National Geographic illustration I used is just to show you to what extent the earth is flooded right now." The problem with this illustration is... well the Earth is not flooded. A global flood DOES contradict science."How did the animals get to the ark? The Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up. The Bible does not state how this was done." I know it doesn't; it is impossible (or at least highly unlikely and unscientific)."We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood." We have a very good idea what the Earth looked like 400 years, and it is EXTREMELY similar to its current state. (http://education.nationalgeographic.com...)The krakatoa example is flawed; this island is very close to land, making it more likely that some small animals did cross on floating debris. Moreover, plant life was already there to provide the animals with food and shelter (whereas a flood would leave no plants alive on the land, making the survival of most animal highly unlikely). http://animals.about.com...The analogy that my opponent makes with rabbits and kangaroos is also flawed, since kangaroos (and many other animals) were already there when humans first got there (except from aborigines people, who by the way have been living in Australia for over 45000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org...))."I'm just saying it is a very logical possibility" Logically possible? I guess. Scientifically possible? Not really; ice ages leave an enormous amount of evidence behind, and there is none that indicate that an ice age occurred 4000 years.An interesting question: How did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations (who existed 4000 years ago) survived the flood?