How many creatonists are aware of this?

Question

This is a serious question.

The primary source for the new earth creationist’s beliefs is the bible. This is the root of the objection to evolutionary theory. I think we can all agree on this. Given that this is the case, how many of them are aware that there are in fact two contradictory accounts of man's creation in genesis?

In genesis chapter one, God creates all the creatures of the earth on the fifth day. On the sixth day, God creates humankind. (Gen. 1:21-30) According to Genesis two however, God creates Adam and THEN all of the plants of the earth, the Garden of Eden and all of the creatures that roam the earth and sky. (Gen. 2:4-20). This is the opposite of the account in genesis one. In one, God makes all life, and then man, but in two, God makes man and then all life.

If you believe in a literal interpretation, how do you rationalize this? Is it possible that the creation story isn't supposed to be interpreted as a verbatim account of how it happened?

I honstly mean this as a serious question, and would appreciate serious answers.

My sources can be found here:
Genesis 1: http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis+1&niv=yes&display_option=columns

Genesis 2: http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis+2&niv=yes

What I mean to say with this is to ask is it at least possible that God didn't provide us with how he created life, only the knowledge that he did? In what ways do evolutionary theory contradict this?

And to head those claims off: Evolution makes no claims about how life began, only how it got to be the way that it is today. Abiogenisis is as much a part of creationism as it is evolution. This being the case, how does evolution contradict biblical teachings?

To "Rev. Albert Einstein": You're incorrect. A refutation of your claim can be found here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

No answer the question, if you would be so kind.

You've also misquoted Gould, who in no way so that as a short coming in evolutionary theory. He believed that speciation, rather than being a drawn out process with many intermediates, happened very quickly. This hypothesis is known as punctuated equilibrium, and is acknowledge to work hand in hand with Darwinian Natural Selection. What you've done is called quote mining. You've also completely shirked my question. Care to give it another try?

Iron Sheep- I agree completely. That is in fact key to my whole argument. Is it not enough to KNOW that God created us, and that he didn't necessarily see it fit to gives the how? My main question stems from this: how does this contradict evolution? The conclusion that I have reached is that it does not.

Envirodude- Where the matter, or even life itself, came from is completely ancillary to the question of how life got to be in its present shape. Evolution does NOT make claims about how life began. Perhaps the definition of the word will help: "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation." (From wikipedia) Your argument that I can't prove where matter came from is completely ludicrous. Where did your God come from? Until you can prove where he came from, I refuse to believe that it exists. See, I can do the same thing. That doesn't really call the existence of God itself into question any more than my lack of expertise in Physics calls evolution into question. Science starts with the observation that life exists and works forward from that, you start with the claim god made it all and try to support it. Congratulations on failing to add anything to the conversation.

Since this is all that your point boils down to, and since your assertion that our not YET knowing how life began negates all understanding of life that we have right now, I'll point back to this: "Your attack on God is a nice dodge. " You do realize that my attack on God in order to dodge your question, was only an effort to show how mind-blowingly stupid YOUR dodge was, right? Give me a break. Just because we don't yet know, and you can't imagine (since you are widely regarded as the smartest man to ever live, and THAT was sarcasm, in case you can't tell) life began doesn't mean that we will never know, or that it in any way calls into evolutionary theory.

Answer 1

Regardless of divine intent, man wrote the bible. The believer will put the blame on this; whether it's due to translation error, an 'editorial' mistake...whatever. That's when not ignoring the contradiction outright.

Of course, it's possible that this account isn't supposed to be verbatim. However, until there was a counterpoint, there was nothing to really point to the tale being allegory.

"...is it at least possible that God didn't provide us with how he created life, only the knowledge that he did?"

No. The bible is fairly clear when it is using a parable to illustrate a life lesson. Plus, as I stated before, without a clear answer to illustrate the rhetoric, it lends itself to being 'fact'.

" In what ways do evolutionary theory contradict this?"

As you state, evolution doesn't make a claim as to the origins, per se. However the contradiction is there. Creation puts forth the claim, as told in the bible, that man was created as a fully formed individual "in god's own image". Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, illustrates and proves that Homo Sapien is the current stopping point in an extremely long line of changes, from one state to another.

The bible lays the credit at the feet of a deity for the creation; while evolution asserts that the so-called creation changed, by its own need...no deity involved. The largest contradiction between the two is divinity: was a god involved, or not?

"Abiogenisis is as much a part of creationism as it is evolution." This is patently false. Abiogenisis consists of hundreds of thousands of complex chemical changes and responses to natural stimuli, resulting in rudimentary life. Genesis (creation) consists of nothing more than the spoken word of a deity sparking life, as we know it.

Simply put, taking the proven facts of evolution (and the mountains of evidence to support it), and calling biblical creation an allegorical tale, is rationalization. The paradigm shifted with the advent of evolutionary theory, yet tradition holds a powerful sway over many.

Answer 2

I wonder if Reverend Al knows that since I have caught him lying again that I think he is immoral. If he has been told that the exact same things word for word that he is posting on other answers are not true and he keeps repeating it then he is a liar. This means that he really doesn't care what God and the Ten Commandments say ,he is going to do it anyway. Lying for Jesus is not an excuse. If you lie about anything, how can anyone trust whatever you say? The fact is you claim to have the truth but you lie to prove it. I will not let you get away with it because I am watching you. You better think about changing your ways because everyone sees what you are doing and it doesn't set a good example for your fellow Christians or the non-believers. The non-believers hear what you say and want no part of anything you represent because you are dishonest. If anybody wants to know what I am talking about look carefully at the qoutes he has posted. They are all taken out of context and he has editorialized them,meaning he has added things.

Answer 3

If you read more closely, you will see that God made the Birds and all creatures in the sea on the fifth day. On the sixth day, God made the animals and livestock that walk on the earth, including "Man"...Chapter 2 vs 4 states: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created"....This is much different from the account given in chapter one speaking "of " the creation. Gen.2:19 simply states that God had "formed the beasts out of the ground and brought them to Adam to see what he would name them." It does not say at that moment God created these animals, it only states how God did create them and refers to this in the past tense form. Read both chapters in their entirety. There are no contradictions based on the verses you posted.

Answer 4

Alright I'll answer it, since Heather asked :P
Chapter one just explains that "man" was created on the sixth day. Chapter Two goes into more detail about "man" and the garden of Eden in which they where placed.

Answer 5

Honestly, I'll have to re-read that, but perhaps God created the idea of Adam before He actually made Adam.

Answer 6

True, the accounts differ in that man was last in one, and first in the other, yet it maintains that God CREATED all we see now. And evolutionism has its own glitches in the story, so we're all even in trying to convince each other about their thoughts and beliefs. I'm rather pleased that you went so far to disprove us by reading a Bible. You're one of the few I have hope for.

Answer 7

A contradiction indeed.

It doesn't take a lot of scientific knowledge and common sense to see these stories for the myths that they are.

.

Answer 8

Why are you so worked up? The bible is FICTION. Take a deep breath and try to relax. You may as well be picking out inconsistent details in the Wizard of Oz.

Answer 9

the first account is the older and pagan one with men/women as equals

the 2nd account is a twisted male sexist one, used to justify inequality and leaves you scratching head as how a god gave man an animal for satisfaction and that wasn't enough, so a woman was made from spare ribs? yah right

Answer 10

Read it closely, one is a macro look and one is a micro look. There is no creation order in the 2nd chapter only explaining cultivation, etc.

Try that on judgment day, Lord the garden thing confused me. You have to have more than that. It is appointed for a man once to die and then the judgment. You apparently reject Him............but there is still some time.