What about the male and the female we read about in Genesis Chapter one "28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it". They were told to fill the earth and then God rested on the 7th day. In Chapter 2 7 "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being" YOU do not see the difference between the male and female in Genesis Chapter one and the man and women in Genesis Chapter 2? Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 1 is a summary of events of the 6 day creation week followed by the 7th day where God stopped or rested from the creation week. Genesis 2:4-25 are details of day 6 of the creation week. How do we know? Because Genesis 2 says there was not a man to till the ground yet.
5 "...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,..."
(Genesis 2:5-6).
Verse 5 says there was not a man to till the ground. So this means there were no men or humans living yet at this point. Then in verse 7, God forms man out of the dust of the ground. If you were to keep reading, it talks about how this man is commanded not to eat of a certain tree (Which is Adam).
So it is obvious. The only way a person does not want to acknowledge that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same creation account are only doing so because they are trying to cram secular ideas into the Bible where they do not belong.
You said:
Also we have a ton of science and history that you seem to want to ignore and disregard. I took my first ancient history class over 50 years ago and I have studied history and science for many years now. I would be glad to help you to understand, but you do not want to know so there is no reason for me to wear myself out for nothing.
I do not place any stock in man made history. I believe the Scriptures when they say,
"...let God be found true,
though every man be found a liar,"
(Romans 3:4) (NASB).
Meaning God is always true in what He says within His Word and men can lie.
So the only time man's history is even remotely valuable to me is when it aligns with Scripture in some way. If it does not, I could care less about it because some guy in the past could be lying about those events so as to make himself or others look good.
Anyways, there is a huge difference between Historical Science and Observational Science. To see what I am talking about, check out this short animated video.