That there have been similar exchanges is no surprise, because I think that this discussion demonstrates some of the basic differences, not only between science and religion, but between 'mainline' Christianity and Fundamentalism.

The former is basically intellectual in orientation and the latter anti-intellectual. The former, as I stated above, looks at ALL the evidence, which may change over time, and forms conclusions based on the best evidence available, the latter begins with the conclusion, for which there is usually no evidence at all, and then simply ignores all the evidence to the contrary, frequently threatening with eternal damnation all who disagree. I leave to each believer to decide which is the more valid method of reasoning.

As an example, caf writes, 'There is no existing or known extra-Biblical source for any of the material in Genesis.' Of course, the exact opposite is true. The entire book was edited from pre-existing documents and oral history, which is to say, myths and legends. As far as I know, Genesis contains no original material at all, not word one, unless one counts as 'original' a very few verses which, scholars agree, could not have come from any of the main sources.

The scholars who assembled Genesis during the Exile probably had at their disposal much, much more material than they thought worthy of inclusion. I have no problem with someone asserting that the Holy Spirit guided their scholarship. But when someone says that Moses personally wrote the entire book many centuries earlier, that is not true, that is merely legendary, and, I think, rather an affront to our God-given intellect, and to the work of centuries of dedicated scholars, Jewish and Christian.