[Havoc]

We simply don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis as it flies in the face of the physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence you can produce that argues against the account in Genesis. The spin you associate with the evidence is something else altogether.

[Junior]

There is no physical evidence you can produce that argues against the account in Genesis.

An Earth and Solar System dated at a few billion years old; a fossil record that just happens to show a progression from the single-celled to multi-cellular to increasingly complex organisms over billions of years -- all corroborated by multiple dating types to obviate any discrepancies.

Of course, what you are saying is there is no physical evidence that we can produce that you will accept, regardless of its provenence. You are one of the few creationists who make no bones about flat-out rejecting any evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.