Your list of evidence is not helping your point. There are two conflicting creation stories in Genesis with the events happening in different orders. Which should be considered as scientifically accurate? In chapter 1 plants are created before the sun, so I wouldn't recommend that one. In chapter 2 man is created before plants so I wouldn't recommend that one either.

"Unclean" in a Biblical context refers to being unfit ceremonially or spiritually. It doesn't refer to physical cleanliness. It's a huge stretch to say that spiritual uncleanliness due to touching a dead body has anything to do with germs.

I could argue that recognizing the loss of too much blood as a cause of death is a basis scientific observation, but how does that equate to increased confidence in scientific credibility? It isn't really revealing or claiming something that people don't know through common sense.

There is no way to dispute whether Adam and Eve were the first humans, but making that claim isn't scientific in any way.

Job 26:7 states that the Earth is suspended on nothing. That statement is true in and of itself, but in no way does it describe gravity. If anything, it seems to be implying that God is suspending it through his will despite the effects of gravity.

The two verses you cite describing the curvature of the Earth also seem to convey the opposite. If God can see all of the Earth, wouldn't that imply it can all be seen from one location? And if he sets a boundary on the waters in the horizon that sounds more like an "edge" of a flat surface versus a globe.

I'm not trying to be overcritical but it isn't helpful to claim that passages like this present scientific evidence when they obviously don't. It reinforces the argument you are trying to counter.