The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Age of the Earth."there is not much I can say against the "it's a metaphor" argument, except that we agreed to take Genesis literally." Yes, indeed we did. What my adversary fails to understand is that I am not arguing the Genesis "days" are a metaphor. Con must understand that the Genesis account of creation was originally written in Hebrew. The word we translate to "day" can mean different time periods, not 24 hours necessarily, and I have given many examples. I do take Genesis literally, and this in no way contradicts science. "My opponent claims that the Sun was created on the first day, but Genesis clearly states that it was created on the FOURTH day"Also, Con must understand that "the beginning" is not the same as the "first day". Perhaps he will understand more clearly if he studies the time line of creation in this link: http://www.jw.org..."There is also the fact that the Moon is referred to as a LIGHT"No, it's not. https://answersingenesis.org..."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." First of all, I already showed you a "day" could be 750 million years long, 1,000 years long, or even less than 24 hours long. Secondly, there is no way Adam and Eve could be alive after the seventh day because the seventh day is not over yet. http://wol.jw.org...Evolution."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."There is nothing more to argue about this. You can not prove evolution is real science, and I don't know what more evidence to show you that it is not real science. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.Currently, the evolution theory is the unfalsifiable. 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. 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? 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? We can not live long enough to observe this. The best we can do is come to the most logical conclusion based on the facts. The fossil record is an abrupt record missing intermediares, between amphibian and mammals for instance. 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? In addition, our knowledge of mutations shows these result in loss of information. 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. This is simply not what we observe in nature. That the idea is incomplte is not a good reason to reject it? Perhaps. 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. The flood and Noah's ark."Well, trees can not survive underwater." https://answersingenesis.org..."Setting aside that this is not supported by any scientific evidence, how does this relate to the trees?" It doesn't. It relates to the mountains."I know it doesn't; it is impossible (or at least highly unlikely and unscientific)." 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?"We have a very good idea what the Earth looked like 400 years, and it is EXTREMELY similar to its current state."I'm going to assume you meant 4,000 years ago. That link is just an idea of what it looked like IF there was no flood. Therefore, it is irrelevant.How did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations (who existed 4000 years ago) survived the flood?You don't have valid evidence: https://answersingenesis.org...