Human Interest. Good observations.

The fact is, natural selection does occur. The problem is when this is unfairly (on the basis of available evidence) extrapolated to 'origins' of a spontaneous nature.

Ultimately that's where the conflict goes.

I still feel it's worth repeating that the first 2 verses of Genesis are not 'agin' science, rather, they are pro. But the degree of literalness applied to the concepts of day etc, and sequence of events... well.. perhaps it's better not to speculate too far.

It can be said though, that the problems people have with Genesis, reduce in direct proportion to their experience of the saving healing Grace of God.

PAUL was not the least concerned with the status of Genesis when he encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus....nope.. all he knew was that he was now physically blinded, he heard a voice, the voice identified Himself as Jesus, he went to Damascus led by the hand, and was healed miraculously, and now wanted to follow Christ.

PETER, when standing in front of the large crowd which just days before had be screaming for Jesus blood, and scoping out any of his followers; and spoke with boldness "This Jesus...whom YOU crucified" nope.. he was not struggling with the Genesis account :)

So.. to answer the question "Is there any evidence the Biblical account of Genesis isn't the truth" I'd say 'no' but it depends a fair bit on how you approach Genesis.

I meant to add this link earlier in the discussion. I've allowed this post, but with reservations, which were worked out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2237.

Some weeks back, when I first pondered the Genesis account for a thread, my feeling was that all Ive been hearing from the pro-Evolution people, since I became a born again christian 26 years ago, was that Christians were the ones who needed to substantiate their claim to the Genesis account being an accurate truth.

The Christians dont need to substantiate their claim because they have The Holy Spirit Who confirms the Truth of The Holy Bible.

Nowhere had I ever seen a question, as far as I can recall, that challenges the pro-Evolutionists to prove the account wrong?

I believe the pro-Evolution group has no irrefutable evidence at all that proves the Genesis account false.

I only used a Creationist website on the dinosaurs because it has a good explanation of what The Bible said about those creatures.

Personally Im a simple Bible believer and dont belong to any Creationist group.
I simply believe the Holy Bible account of the First Book called Genesis.

We live in a world of stories. I can easily imagine that as language was being developed and refined, mankind spent a great deal of time using it to create an understanding of their environment. And - just as we all have done throughout our lives - speculated on the nature of the sky, the stars, the animals and the plants, the need for food, the miracle of procreation and the overall mystery of life.

Part of the process of this growing understanding was the telling of stories. Images have always been a powerful means of communication, and the best writer/storyteller has always been the one able to invoke the most powerful, and memorable images.

It is no surprise to me that at some point, someone envisaged and articulated the Genesis story. As has been pointed out many times, the same images have been evoked in many different cultures, all attempting in their own way to make sense of where we came from.

The need for "truth" becomes totally irrelevant in this process.

Genesis is a great story. It explained stuff that was otherwise incomprehensible to our ancestors. It made people feel warm and protected, as well as alert to the dangers of wrongdoing.

It has its own "truth".

It is not necessarily everyone's truth, but most importantly, it is entirely unnecessary to disprove it.

It may be that it is not the sort of scientific truth that is susceptible to testing. But that doesn't make it any less of a truth to those who wish to trust it.

Perhaps a question that we need to address before worrying this one to death is simply, what constitutes "truth"?

Is it merely "that which we as individuals believe to be true?"

This definition would at least explain why the world was once flat, and why the sun and stars once revolved around the earth.

Gibo said: "The Christians dont need to substantiate their claim because they have The Holy Spirit Who confirms the Truth of The Holy Bible."

And there you have it. Christians are absolved of the need to substantiate any claim yet the rest of us poor folk are required to provide hard evidence at the table.

No matter how well intentioned, Gibo and others of his ilk won't entertain the possiblity they are wrong, only that the rest of us carry the burden of proof.

Gibo - which version of the Genesis account do you mean?

Do you mean that account as recorded early in the christain bible followed by geneologies which suggest that the world is 5 to 7 thousand years old, that death came into the world at the time Adam and Eve sinned and that God played it straight? If so there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record, from the study of the universe, carbon dating etc.

If you mean the version where god went around planting false evidence to make the world look a lot older than it is, to make it look as if different life forms have existed at different times without overlap, to make it appear that light left stars and galaxies billions of years before those stars and galaxies came into existance, to make it seem that a young earth is false then probably not. It's rather difficult to prove that an all powerfull god could not be pulling off a massive deception.

Which god do you believe in?

R0bert