Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation?

Genesis wasn't written down first-hand. Those stories were passed down generation-to-generation for a long time (sort of like the Illiad). However, when the creation story was written out, there were two accounts, which the author of Genesis (Moses?) put side-by-side. Genesis 1 shows the order of creation. Genesis 2 shows a more personal creation in which God cares about what man thinks of the garden.The flood story is the same, except there were three accounts, and they weren't side-by-side, but shuffled together. If you'll notice, the ark seems to rise off the waters three times. However, this doesn't mean that these stories are false in any way. The Iliad turned out to be quite plausible....

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

I feel that the parts that have people the most realistic (although they wouldn't make long speeches while fighting, like they do in the book).However, the Iliad is never said to be true, and we found out that it was. With the Bible, however, either it is true or it isn't. You can't take only part of the Bible as divine and the other parts human. If you did that, you might as well take the entire Bible only the work of humans, not inspired by God.So, theoretically, if you prove one part of the Bible is true (the Exodus, for example), you thereby prove the entire Bible... technically.So your way of grading different parts of the Bible as plausible or fake is wrong, because the Bible is simply either plausible or fake. You can't say 'Well, Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong because they have God directly interacting with humans. Then, until Genesis 5, it is correct, or plausible. But then, you have the Flood, which is God directly affecting the earth, so that's fake, then you get to...'The Bible has to be 'graded' as a whole.P.S. The version of the Iliad you've quoted from is from way after the Iliad is actually written. That version uses the Roman names, like Neptune, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars (Apollo is the same in both Greek and Roman religion) This isn't bad, but I prefer the actual Greek version with their gods names, such as Poseidon, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Ares.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

No, it wasn't a joke. I really meant it. That's what the Bible says/is. It's like Jesus, both human and divine. You can't seperate the human parts from the divine parts. They're together, welded into one thing.So no, I wasn't joking. If either all of the Bible's true, or all of it's false, if you prove one thing is true, it all has to be true.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

[qs=Codegate]Unfortunately Jar is no longer here to raise this, but I have to ask, which bible are you referring to? There are dozens of different bibles and canons used by different Christian churches around the world.[qs] I am a Protestant, so I believe that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. If you want me to list the books, I will.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

The problem with yours is that again your using novels (or a nice idea, in the case of Origin of the Species, or a good play in Romeo and Juliet). And what I meant was that an event, not a place. The Exodus is an event, not a place. The Exodus took place from Egypt, down the Sinai, across the sea, up the Arabian Peninsula, and across the Jordan River.If you prove an event (especially one as unlikely as the Exodus) is true, you prove the Bible.