The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

A supercontinent and continental driftEither land was made up of several continents or just one, so there is a 50/50 chance of guessing this right. Claiming this as evidence of foreknowledge is like proclaiming someone psychic because they predicted a coin would land on tails. By the Mosaic account, the ancient Hebrews were not aware of any continents, so it is natural they would think of land as one mass. Furthermore, we have to take the verse in context: Genesis has land forming before the Sun[1], which is obviously false, so the notion that the Genesis account constitutes knowledge must be false. My opponent claims a flood as the cause of the continents breaking up. There is no scientific evidence for such a flood, and my opponent does not specify how a flood would cause plates to move. During the Earth's 4.5 billion year history, there have been many cycles of supercontinents and then continents breaking apart, so one event does not suffice to describe the movement of the land on Earth. [2][3] The change in atmospheric conditions required to support sufficient water vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 80,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide[4] - would have made the air unbreathable. The atmosphere couldn't sustain that much water even under the most extreme temperature and pressure conditions the planet can produce. If the conditions were right for that much water to be in the atmosphere, the Earth would be turned into the equivalent of a pressure cooker, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels. [5]The Bible has humans existing at the time of the flood. Our species is 200,000 years old. [6][7][8] The first supercontinent, Vaalbara, broke apart 2500 million years ago. Even the most recent supercontinent, Pangea, broke up 200 million years ago, long before humans were on this planet. [2][3]The Biblical account isn't supported by science, it contradicts it. CircumcisionWe can take it as a given that the Rabbis and mothers had experience of circumcisions. From this experience, they would know that for babies a few days old the wound doesn't heal as well. It is on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K which aids clotting is present in adequate quantities. There is no scientific literature saying exactly eight days old for a circumcision is optimal. The study Optimal time for neonatal circumcision: an observation-based study, by B Banieghal, shows that painless circumcision is possible in almost all newborns if it is performed during the first week after birth. [9] That would suggest five to seven days, not eight. Another study suggests only that "infancy" is the best time. [10]The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons advise that the procedure should be performed electively after six months of age. [11][1] Genesis 1:9 - 16. [2] . http://www.sciencedaily.com...[3] . http://www.geo.uu.nl...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[6] . http://humanorigins.si.edu...[7] . http://anthro.palomar.edu...[8] . http://news.bbc.co.uk...[9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[10] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] . http://www.cirp.org...