The Genesis 1 - 2: 3 account of the creation by the plural Elohim came from Chaldea and logically presents an order of emergence of species in periods of time, not 24 hour periods as governed by our sun whose light did not appear till the fourth day. Though the interdependence of some species indicates they emerged similtaneously as they cannot survive without the other.

The Adamic account Gen 2: 4 - 19 in the Bible though based upon early Chaldean ledgend Moses uses here to establish YHWH monotheism; man made in the image of God, then Eve made in the image of man. Though Male and female were planned and created similtaneously in the Chaldean account, Moses uses to establish unity of one. The point of the story of Adam is to indicate man and woman were made for relationship and now form one to express the full image of God.

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

And why do they need to? The scientists have plenty of evidence to back up their claims. Scientists rely on testable fact to explain natural phenomena only, not the supernatural or the magical - how can science disprove a non-scientific claim?

If the christians are making claims based on genesis, then they need to supply their proof. Unfortunately, the biblical scholars don't do any scientific lab research, their 'research' takes place only in libraries.

"...their "evidence" for creation is really nothing more than intentionally or unintentionally garbled evidence against evolution - as if they could prove the Genesis mythology by disproving Darwin!..."

Creation won't be the default theory left by virtue of the 'the only one left standing' if the christians can somehow disprove Darwin, they will still have to disprove all other mytholigies in existence

"...creationists are obliged, after they "disprove" naturalistic, evolutionary theories, to show that their own mythology is true. They must produce evidence that green plants existed before the sun was "created," and that all life and all of nature came into existence in six days..."

"CREATION SCIENCE" AND THE FACT OF EVOLUTION:

http://www.atheists.org/evolution/creationscience.htm

Sancho: << Is there any proof that me and George Clooney aren't the same person? >>

CJ Morgan: <<Sorry Sancho, but I have to inform you that I'm George Clooney, so your theory is refuted. At least, that's what my darling partner thinks since her eyesight began to fail and the lights are off.>>

Now look here boys. I've told you before that I'm not letting George out to play with you until he stops saying he's Alan Ladd.

I'm Rosemary Clooney, and you know it's true.

Dear Gibo,

According to World Book Encyclopedia:

"Most evolutionary changes occur too slowly
to be observed directly. However, scientists
in a number of fields have found much
evidence to support the theory of evolution.

This evidence comes from five principal sources:
1) Fossils, 2) Adaptations in organisms
3) Geographic distribution of species
4) Comparative studies of species and
5) Embryology."

However, as World Book points out, "many people
accept the basic principles of evolution within
the framework of their religious beliefs.

For example, some Biblical scholars interpret the
story of the Creation as a symbolic, rather than
literal, account of the origin of human beings,
and other living things. They don't find this
symbolic interpretation incompatible with the
findings of evolutionary biologists.

For many people, the idea that human beings evolved
from lower forms of life does not diminsh the
uniqueness of human capabilities and the
accomplishments of human civilizations."

The Genesis story was written by four different authors and all were written in captivity on the banks of the Euphrates.These are folkloric.Each is true enough in a poetic sense i.e that each has a viable structure and tells its narrative as understood by the author about the Iron Age world. The 4 authors were given names like P ( for priestly author) D ( the Deutronomist) and there were two others whose names I cant recall at present and I am lazy so I wont refresh my memory...they are in my theological notes somewhere. Oh by the way the third was E (the Elohist) ...suddenly came to me. One of you might supply the name of the remaining author,I hope.None of these were meant to be scientific accounts so they werent looking for empirically derived evidence for their stories.Stories was all they really were.

They werent the only ones doing this,by the way. There are other accounts of how the world was created that exist in Sumerian and Chaldean folk stories. These were inscribed in clay and were in the archives in Baghdad and Damascus.I doubt that the Bagdad ones have survived as the archives in the national library is currently a heap of rubble, sad to say.

socratease

Hi Gibo,
Scientists are into the business of explaining observations, I doubt they would want to throw away their meager funding into disproving things that aren’t observable.
I think that the therory of evolution is a contradiction of genesis if we’re talking about the literal interpretation of genesis.
The nature of science is such, that scientific theories are never seen as irrefutible.
But the evidence we have collected in favour of evolution so far is overwhelming and supported by many fields.
.
Despite the best efforts of scientists (and creationists) to overthrow the evolution theory, it hasn’t been disproven.
Not a single observation, not one piece of evidence since Darwin times has come about that contradicted the established theory of evolution.

Creationists seem to think that scientists develop a theory and then try to protect that theory in the same way as creationists protect ‘the word of God’.
This is not so.
Scientists, unlike creationists, do not have a ‘book of one truth’ in which they have faith and which they need to protect from criticism.

Creationists seem to think that scientists make a living by producing evidence that supports established theories.
In fact, they are in the business of disproving an established theory. ANY scientists who is able to disprove the status quo, by producing evidence that overthrows the theory will be instantly famous.

So, scientists are always out to not only to support, but to disprove their own theories and hypotheses, while creationists are out to prove that the genesis story is correct.