Can Christians clarify what isn't a so called "metaphor" in their bible, so when science proves it wrong they have nothing to hide behind?

As an accountant, I am eager to answer questions regarding my work. In part, because, I can properly support anything I say. But there is also the fact that if I do make a mistake, I want to know about it so I can correct it.

Science is the same way, they want proof, because they want the truth.

Religion is not on the same page. They are not interested in the truth. So what is their reason to want to put things to the test?

It works opposite of that. They claim it a fact, until science proves it wrong. Only then they call it metaphor, or some other thing just to save face. The church depends on an image of perfection, so anything proven wrong is metaphor, or mistranslated, or interpreted wrong, or some such lame excuse.
Christianity is the true religion of the lame excuse.

It is unfortunate that you hate people for what they believe.

Scientist and author Victor Stenger proposed this:

1. Hypothesize a God that plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence tor his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God MAY exist.
5. if such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, that a God with these properties does NOT exist.

Also I recall something of what comedian George Carlin said. "What if there is a god but he does not give a ****?" Is that not possible?

I'm sure we could clarify. But what do you actually want for an answer here? We can't give you a list of everything that is a metaphor in the Bible and everything that isn't. We aren't allowed answers that long.

Yes, of course we can. Are you asking for a personal Bible study? That can easily be arranged, and it's the only way you will get a full answer to all your questions.

Why would you want an idea to be unproven!
Please use a modicum of logic to get rid of the nonsense about the burden of proof. By very simple definition, there neither is nor can be any burden of proof. There can be no proof either way. To disprove God, one needs to know everything. A god that was within the grasp of a finite mind would, plainly, not be God. My children grasped that by the age of 13. No wonder it does not make logical sense to you!!

Your question asks diverse things.

There isn't enough space here to go through the entire Bible pointing out what is figurative or symbolic or a parable or an illustration. However if English is your primary language you should be able to tell by the use of language what you're reading what it is you're reading if you have reasonable skill and ability to reason.
You however will encounter people who can't think past the end of their own nose. I was just answering a question about Adam and Eve where one of the answers stated that account was an allegory. I don't know if that answerer was a Christian or not but if they are they in trouble. If Adam wasn't real then sin didn't enter the world through one man and the ransom of one perfect man is of no value. That is only one problem a raising from the creation account not being historical.

Then you ask what scientific discoveries would disprove my religion. The answer to that is no scientific discoveries would disprove my religion. First of all because I am college educated and work in a field that is dependent on afield of science knowledge I know the value and short coming of science.
Secondly my religious knowledge isn't wishy washy or based on emotionalism but has its foundation in being convinced by evidence. This evidence is historical and logical is based in law and where it touches on science it is reasonable.

I don't HAVE the burden of proof, unless I insist in some way, directly or indirectly, that you should acknowledge your beliefs are wrong and adopt mine instead. (By "indirectly" I mean such nastiness as calling someone stupid, mendacious, illogical, brainwashed, foolish, or otherwise mentally deficient, simply for having the temerity to disagree with you about something you cannot prove.)

If you're the one making some such claim on us, then you're the one who must assume the burden of proof.

As to your main question: I do think the term "metaphor" is over-used, because there are lots of types of figurative language other than metaphors. But if you're setting out to "disprove" something in the Bible, then it's up to you to specify the particular interpretation you're trying to disprove.

You could start out on something easier, like disproving the assertions in Dr. Seuss. Six-foot-tall, hat-wearing cats, or eggs incubated by elephants producing elephant-birds.

Or you could recognize that by the time, when learning to read, that you graduate to Dr. Seuss, you're supposed to understand that not everything written is supposed to be approached like a grade-school science text.

Science is unable to prove anything.

That is the very basis of science and one of its salient features. In fact if it could prove something then it could not be science.

Proof can only be found in Mathematics.

If you don't know this you are hiding in ignorance.