It is clearly false to claim "Also, the experts are apparently unanimous that the the creation and flood accounts in Genesis are not allegory." If that were true, then there would be no debate among scholars, which there is... unless your definition of expert is "Those who agree that Genesis is not allegorical.". As just an example... here's 10,000+ clergy who might disagree with you: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm --- But I'm sure none of them is an "expert". [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, none of them are experts! :-). Seriously, I did leave myself open by not defining "experts", but I also did have good reason for claiming that, other than your typical-of-anti-creationists slur as to what my definition might be.:Being a minister of religion doesn't make you an "expert" on the Hebrew language, which is why I would discount your list. And here my justification for that claim (from James Barr, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University):{{QuoteBox|Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know}}:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
== Young earth creationist view ==