The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

I am in no way saying that an error was committed, but that yom can refer to a vague period of time. My opponent's error is that he argues that Genesis doesn't mention a periods of indefinite periods of time when i gave a source to support that the time length of a day in Hebraic thinking can range from a couple of seconds to years. Hebrews did not have the same concepts of time as we do. In Hebraic thinking, a day was made of the completed events (1). For example, if God wanted to create the sun and it would taken thousands of years, those thousands of years would make up that day. If it took a million years for God to make the oceans, those millions of years would make up the day in which God would complete his action of creating. My opponent assumes that all natural phenomenon can be sensed. On top of that, not everything can be confirmed by scientific evidence. My opponent hasn't confirmed the existence of this website or that i exist or humans or plants, etc. He is not going by science, he is going by intuition and first-hand experience to interact with the world around him. What my opponent is basically implying is that in order to confirm the existence of everything, scientific observations must be made for everything which is impractical. Maybe Noah couldn't have because of certain environmental factors, but that's aside the point. God told him to build an ark and bring his family and the animals in it. The Bible was never meant to be taken literally all the time as we can clearly see from the sources i presented earlier. My opponent fails to give evidence that the Bible itself was a story made up to help humans survive. From the evidence presented in my 1st round, this seems unlikely. My opponent ignores the evidence presented in 1st round. How is it that ancients could write about scientific accurate descriptions of the universe when scientific discoveries were made thousands of years later? How can the Bible have so little errors given the fact that humans are biased? How are prophecies true when humans cannot see into the future? God is the only simplest explanation. I looked up HADD and according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org...), this is what psychologist Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner wrote: "The high cost of failing to detect agents and the low cost of wrongly detecting them has led researchers to suggest that people possess a Hyperactive Agent Detection Device, a cognitive module that readily ascribes events in the environment to the behavior of agents." Logically, this is simply a cognitive module, not a solid explanation for God's existence. It does not imply humans only sense God and that it is caused by the brain. Wiki gives the example of a human coming across a footprint and assuming it is a lion. Was he wrong in his assumption? Yes, but do lions cease to exist and now become a product of our imagination? No. In my experience of God: I heard a voice claiming to be God, had a divine revelation of the nature of Jesus Christ, and an experience of repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is far more difficult to replicate that based on human experience. Religion MAY HAVE BEEN a solution to the concept of mortality, but which religion? Not all religions have the same truth value. The fact that humans constructed many gods doesn't imply that the God of Abraham is invented. On the contrary, Romans 1:20-23 "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man"and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Paul said that people made up their own gods out of materials and rejected the invisible God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If Paul completely explains why people invent gods, we should also consider that given the circumstances, the God of Abraham isn't an invention unless you can provide solid proof rather than simply that humans need to connect themselves with deities. I rest my case on these rebuttals. Sources: 1. Doukhan, p. 200. Cf. Von Rad, Vol. 2, p. 100-101.