Scott,

Keep your $100. I can't prove you right or wrong nor is it worth the effort.

What I do know is that I see concrete evidence..anthropological ...archaeological....radio carbon dating...geological ... and some of the newer testing with strontium 90 that offer more proof in the plan of evolution than I see in scripture. It is interesting that you should bring up the point of literal interpretation of scripture. I once was told by a priest that the old testament is not to be taken literally. It was an attempt of an ignorant people trying to explain the world around them in terms they could understand.

There are even scholars who believe that portions of the old testament may have been borrowed from other cultures.Noah for instance may have been a Babylonian rather than a Jew. They know that there must have been a regional flood. There are accounts of a flood legend in Greek, Hebrew an Babylonian history. The Greek legend is almost identical to the Hebrew legend except the boat landed on a mountain in Greece rather than on Ararat. They are not certain if there was a flooding of the Mediterranean coast or an overflow of the Tigris and Euphrates River in Mesopotamia. It is thought that the Babylonian account of this flood may have been picked up by the Hebrews during the Babylonian captivity, and was retained by them after there release by Cyrus, King of Persia.. The point is that Scruipture was mainly oral and not written for many centuries. Embellishments creep in. I am simply stating that I find the scientic record of evolution more convincing.

The Bible is a great adventure story, but I do not put much stock into its accuracy.