The Bible and REAL science harmonize

Let's start with a quick definition of science. Science is a method we use to acquire knowledge; it is a process by which we analyze what we observe and draw conclusions based on these observations. Here is a quick summary of the scientific method, as it is generally used:1) We start by observing a phenomenon that occurs in nature for which an explanation is required (which means basically everything). This phenomenon must be observable by everyone (given the right tool) in order to be qualified as 'natural'.2) Based on these observations, we make conjectures (hypotheses) in order to have a starting point. We should try to apply Occam's razor as much as possible when making conjectures.3) We then test these conjectures in order to make sure that they are as accurate as possible and if they are not, we modify them to conform to reality. It is important to modify the conjecture to fit with the data and NOT the other way around.4) Step 3 must be repeated over and over again and by more than one person in order to validate its accuracy.5) In order for an hypothesis to become a theory (which is the highest it can get), it must be able to produce accurate predictions. It is important to note that a theory can never be 'proved', it can only be disproved. We usually apply the label 'proved' to a theory when it has been known to survive the most rigorous tests and provided plenty of accurate predictions, but it is technically not the right word.While this method is not infallible, it is the most reliable that has ever been constructed to date.Now, the topic of this debate is 'The Bible and real science harmonize'. While 'harmonize' may mean different things in different contexts, I believe that both me and my opponent can agree that, in this case, it would mean that the Bible does not contradict science. In this debate, the Bible will be treated as being LITERALY true. On to the arguments.Age of the Earth.This is an obvious example which I am sure my opponent could have predicted would come up. It is one of the most popular instances of the Bible contradicting what science has taught us. In order to determine the age of the Earth, scientists have most often used radiometric dating. While I would like to provide a brief definition of this technique that I could call my own, I believe this one sums it up pretty well:"Radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates." http://en.wikipedia.org...Using this technique, they have been able to calculate the age of the Earth with relatively good precision: 4.54 billion years (with an error of about 1%). When taken literally, the Bible puts the age of the Earth at about 6000 years old, which obviously contradicts science.But calculating the age of the earth itself is not the only way science contradicts the Bible on this subject; some organisms, which are still alive today, are actually older than 6000 years:- The Jurupa Oak is estimated to be around 13000 years old. http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu...- The Old tjikko is estimated to be around 9500 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org...- Pando is estimated to be around 80000 years old! http://discovermagazine.com...And these are just a few examples.I think it is therefore safe to conclude that the Bible contradicts science on the matter of the age of the Earth.Evolution.This is another classical example. The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible's explanation regarding human beings; while evolution says that we are the product of millions of years genetic mutations coupled with DNA inheritance (all governed, at least in part, by natural selection), the Bible teaches that we were created by God as we are now.If my opponent wants me to defend the theory of evolution, I will gladly do so, but it would seem that whether or not evolution is correct is irrelevant in this debate; what matters is whether or not science supports this theory. And if we consider the innumerable fossils that we have discovered (all of which confirm the theory of evolution), the discovery of DNA (which explains how mutations happen and how they are passed down through generations) as well as the many traits we which share with other species, it seems undeniable that science indeed supports this theory.The flood and Noah's ark.I will put aside the small technicalities of this story (i.e. how could a small family possibly build such an ark and care for all the animals) and focus on the big issues.According to the story, it rained for 40 days, which was enough to submerge the highest mountain (Everest) under 22 feet of water. The thing is, there is not enough water on the entire planet to perform such a task; we would actually need 100 times more water than we currently have. Plus there would need to be 6 inches of rain per minute for this to occur, but I grant this does not ENTIRELY violate science.Obviously, when all the water dried (and went... somewhere), all the animals disembarked the ark and went their merry way. The problem is, it is impossible for most animals to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean (or any other ocean for that matter) and yet, we find animals all over the globe. They obviously could not have survived the flood and I do not believe that Noah would have had the patience to perform this task.While the Bible assumes that marine life would survive such and "adventure", the reality is different. The mix of salt water and fresh water alone would kill many species. The variation in temperature and pressure would kill many more. Finally, the introduction of new predators to previously non-hunted fish would be fatal to numerous other species.Keep in mind that my goal in this debate is not to prove the Bible wrong, it is simply to illustrate how it contradicts science. I eagerly await my opponent's response.