You've still missed the point. The result of this book, if successful, would be to present scientific evidence in favor of the Bible.
A theory can have nigh-on all the supporting evidence in the world, but
just one instance of contradictory evidence, and the theory is disproved. Never proved, but potentially disproved. The same happens with the Bible: you can support it all you want, but just one count of contradiction, and the Bible cannot be entirely true (as John and, I assume, you advoke). So, onto the contradictions with science:
Gen 3:14 says serpents will henceforth eat dust. Except,
they don't .
Gen 8:8-11 implies that olive trees germinate and bear leaves within a week. Except, they don't.
Gen 11:1,6 says that there ones but one language on Earth, and Gen 11:9 says that the multitude of languages were instantaneously created. Except, there wasn't (there were many hundreds of languages by 2400 BCE), and they weren't (languages gradually evolved).
Ex 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26, all say or imply that the Israelite population grew from 70 to several million within a few hundred years. I don't think I need to point out what's wrong with that scenario.
Lev 11:13-19 clearly states that the bat is a fowl. Except, it's not, it's a mammal.
QED.
Also, not so much a contradiction to science as a baffling unknown:
In Gen 1:16, a 'lesser light to rule the night' is made. But this can't refer to the moon, since it is neither a light (lesser or otherwise) nor does it 'rule the night' (it spends half it's time in the daytime!). What, then, is this lesser light?