The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Age of the Earth.Like I previously said, the Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. That he called light day only proves my point. Another example is that a regular day for Jehovah is 1,000 years according to 2 Peter 3:8. So, the creative days could have been a lot longer. Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours, this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time (compare with Proverbs 4:18). Yes, a day could mean around 750 million years, and this raises no problems at all. To begin with, the sun was created in "the beginning" as part of the heavens and the earth (obviously before the earth). On the first day, after "the beginning", diffused light evidently penetrated the earth’s atmosphere. The source of light would be imperceptible to an observer on the surface of the earth, yet, the difference between night and day became discernible. Some vegetation, that could survive with the diffused light, appeared on the third day, and even more appeared after the fourth day when the sun and moon became discernible from the earth's surface. Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, and nothing in the Bible really suggests that they lived for millions of years. Again, even if this was the case, you can not disprove it until you disprove God, and we are not debating the existence of God. We are debating whether the Bible is in harmony with the established scientific facts.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". This is not an established scientific fact. It is an attempt to prove God was not necessary for the complex variety of life now to exist. A nonsensical unscientific idea based on the ASSUMPTION that God is not real, which science can not prove. The flaws are too many to site here so I will just give you two links that talk about it. This link is on the fossil record: http://wol.jw.org...This link is on natural selection and mutations: https://answersingenesis.org...The flood and Noah's ark.Correct, the flood occurred about 4,000 years ago. How does this contradict the age of the trees? Like I said in the previous round, during the flood, mountains were pushed up from under the seas. And currently, there is ten times as much water by volume in the oceans as there is land above sea level. The National Geographic illustration I used is just to show you to what extent the earth is flooded right now. A global flood 4,000 years ago does not 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. We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time, then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant. How did the animals recolonize after? The Bible also does not answer this. However, there are clues from various sources which suggest answers to the questions. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Some mockingly ask: "Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?" We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-flood world.We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the flood. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on any isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. ("Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.") For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.As you can see, an Ice Age wasn't even necessary. I'm just saying it is a very logical possibility. Two particular aspects of the Flood were instrumental in causing the Ice Age: (1) extensive volcanic activity during and after the Flood, and (2) the warm oceans following the Flood.Once again, Con fails to prove the Bible is not in harmony with REAL science. I eagerly await my adversary's next challenges.