Hello Spice:
Personally, I think it's a bit of a waste of your time. You see, people who are determined to believe in the infallibility of the Bible always refuse to abide by the rational exercise of logic and reasonablility. When you point out an instance of the Bible making an error, they will come up with explanations that have absolutely no evidence to back them up. Then, after you have pointed that out and shown why their explanation is highly unlikely and raises even more problems, they'll come up with further explanations to explain the inconsistencies of their first explanations.
This is why religious literature is generally structured with an initial holy book that science and logic show to be full of glaring errors and contradictions, plus an ever-burgeoning corpus of religious literature to try and explain away these problems, and then to explain away the problems in the explanations. This type of nonsensical reasoning is known as ignotum per ignotius, explaining the unknown by means of the even more unknown, and it is the fundamental flaw in the religious mode of thought.
Eventually they are driven to the extreme of saying the their explanations "could have happened and you can't absolutely prove them wrong", and they go away puffed up with a fit of delusional righteousness while you shake your head with wonderment at the power of the human mind to deceive itself into believing that wants are facts.
However, here is an essay you might find interesting, with some examples you could try on your Father.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2biolo91.html
Expatbrit