The general thrust of Mangani's statement is accurate.

I will try to keep this part of the debate short because I think it has been beaten until it was dead. The real point of the debate, although not explicitly stated in the premise, is whether or not science has a metaphysical commitment to empiricism. If so, then Tartaris is completely accurate in his claim that the Bible contradicts science since both offer contradictory metaphysical positions. However, I think limiting science to a single metaphysical stance, or, more accurately, a single epistemological stance, limits science from truly being able to describe the larger universe that exists beyond our capacities for observation. For example, many cosmologists think that the vacuum we live in, which contains large amounts of fluctuating energy and that has a non-unified forces is what is called a true vacuum. The cosmologists claim that false vacuum, a much higher energy and less stable state of vacuum in which the forces are unified, and is exponentially expanding, is the cause of the matter in our "true vacuum bubble." In other words, the false vacuum expands, but within its expansion, it also decays to lower energy vacuums and the excess energy is what causes the existence of matter, a la the Big Bang. The point of this example is to point out that, if science is metaphysically bound to empiricism, then it will not be able to include any theory that is categorically unable to be identified empirically, and this cosmological structure is not able to be confirmed empirically because the true vacuum and false vacuum are 'expanding' (a bit of an oversimplification) at a rate faster than light. My opponent worries in one of the comments that, if my conception of truth is accepted, then there are true statements within the Star Wars universe, and this will somehow justify Star Wars fanatics in claiming that it somehow explains our universe. It is true that there are truths within the apparent physical structures of the Star Wars universe, but obviously that does not purport to claim anything about the physical structure of our own universe. Similarly, the Bible does not make any substantial claims about the physical universe, aside from the preconceived notions of the ancients which are excusable, and it is a metaphysical position, so it is not, in principle verifiable. Therefore, since it is in principle a separate field of knowledge from science, much like rationalism or romanticism or any ism, it is not in direct contradiction to science, which ought not to take any strict metaphysical stance because it automatically limits itself to not understanding larger cosmological hypotheses. The point is not that the Bible does not attempt to make claims about "non-existent entities," in fact, it does attempt to provide a true system, or a real system. However, for a science to reject that position as a contradiction is to claim that science holds a metaphysical stance of empiricism. And if science holds a metaphysical position of empiricism, then it is unable to explain larger cosmological theories, and since that is unacceptable, science does not offer a competing metaphysical position, and, therefore, is not in direct contradiction to the Bible. My argument is a bit technical in a philosophical sense, but it has to be because it is not the place of science, a method, to place metaphysical limitations in the pursuit of knowledge.