More Scientific Impossibilities

[Ark Guy]

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah. The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.
Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.
For those who choose not to believe in the accounts of Genesis an allegory must be drawn up to explain the verses.

Below are 9 scientifically impossible events that the bible presents as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?
If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?
Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 1-2

The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 2:7 , 2:22

The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 6-8

Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Genesis 9:29

Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Exodus 4:3

The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Joshua 10:13

Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: Matthew 14:29

Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: John 2: 1-11

Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.
REF: John 20,21

Perhaps it’s best to allegorize the resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the six day creation....after all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead guys don’t rise from the grave after 3 days.
That would be the natural “scientific” interpretational tendencies. Allegorize.

The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible?

I believe the bottom line of biblical translation for the Theistic Evolutionist is as follows:
If it relates to the flood or creation, it's an allegory.
Of course there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered down scientifically impossible pick and choose your miracle bible .....salvation is easly lost.

 

[Vance]

But you are doing it again, setting up a strawman so you can knock it down

We have covered this all before.

Christians who believe in an old earth do not do so because a young earth is "scientifically impossible".

Christians who believe in a local flood because a global flood is scientifically impossible.

God is God and can do any miracle He likes, and if He wanted to make the universe in six seconds, He could. No problem there at all.

The problem is not that it is "scientifically impossible" at all. The problem is that the evidence shows very clearly that God did NOT perform His miracle of creation in that particular way. And, the Scripture does not say explicitly that He did. So, why would we disbelieve the evidence God gave us in His creation in favor of one possible reading out of many?

As for the other miracles, the evidence is equally clear that God DID perform the miracle of the resurrection, etc, or there is no evidence at all from God's creation to *disbelieve* it, so I choose to accept it as literal.

The fact that something is "impossible" without God's intervention is NEVER a reason to disbelieve anything since God can always over-ride the natural laws He, Himself, created.

God can perform any miracle He likes, but He does not always perform it in the way that fallible man have read the Scriptures.

 

[lucaspa]

Vance covered this quite well. I'm going to repeat a lot of what he said, but I think it needs repitition. Ark Guy, you have posted this at least 3 times before, and every time I've shown how you have a mistaken notion of science. Now, in order to have a valid point, you must address my refutations. You can't simply ignore them.

You simply have a mistaken idea of how science works and what we are saying.

Often we read where Christians deny the possibility of the events pertaining to the six day creation or the world wide flood of Noah.

As Vance said, we don't deny the possibility. We deny the events happened. Big difference. Yes, it is possible that God created the universe in 144 hours in the recent past and had a world-wide Flood that acconts for all of geology. However, the evidence in God's Creation clearly shows this did not happen. If we had found different evidence (and we can go into what that evidence would have been) then we would have concluded that Creation Science was correct.

The major reason for this denial is due to claims that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis. Genesis is no longer scientifically feasible.

Yes, the literal interpretation of the accounts are disproved. Specifically, the scientific theory that is Creation Science or YEC is disproved. The same way that flat earth, geocentrism, aether, or phlogiston as part of combustion is disproved.

Despite the many scientific evidences pointing to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis there is still this nagging need to deny the accounts of Genesis yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible.

Ark Guy, every theory has "evidences pointing to" it. Flat earth has evidences pointing to it. So does the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Since every theory has evidences supporting it, such evidences cannot be used as the sole criteria to say a theory is valid. By that criteria, every theory is valid. Instead, science works by showing theories to be false, or wrong. Do you get that? No matter how many times you go onto a prairie and the earth looks flat, there are data that simply can't be there if the earth were really flat. Therefore that theory is wrong. Same with Creation Science. There is data there that can't possibly be there if Creation Science were true. Since true theories can't have false consequences, it means Creation Science is false.

Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by “Theistic Evolutionist” while some of the other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same “Theistic Evolutionist” despite their obvious scientific impossibilities?

Because some of the events have data that show they didn't happen. The other events don't have such data.

If the answer is “miracles” then why can’t all the scientific impossibilities be miracles?

Because even miracles have consequences. In some cases those consequences leave evidence we can study today. In those cases, we can say the "miracles" didn't happen because the consequences (data) aren't there. In other cases, the miracles did not leave consequences (data) we can study today.

Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the flood which actually have scientific data to support them become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still up held as fact?

Because recent creation and the flood have data that falsifies them and the others do not.

The creation of the world in six days did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

No. Because there is data that shows it didn't happen.

The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

No. Because there is data that shows it didn't happen.

The world wide flood of Noah did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

Ark Guy, this was a "popular scientific belief". In the period 1700-1831 scientists believed a world wide flood of Noah happened. These same scientists, all of whom were Christian and most of whom were ministers, showed that a word-wide flood did not happen.

Men living to long ages did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.

Because the data shows it impossible. Ever hear of Hayflick's number?

Moses staff turning into snakes did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

What is the data that shows this to not have happened? Do we have the staff? What evidence is there today to show it didn't happen? So be specific: how has this been shown to be scientifically impossible?

The sun standing still for Joshua did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Again, data shows this one didn't happen. Such a standstill would have released enough energy to melt the earth. Besides, don't you think other peoples would have noticed and written about the event?

Peter walking on the water with Jesus did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where is the data to show this didn't happen?

Jesus turning water into wine did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where's the data? They drank it all, didn't they?

Jesus Christ rising from the dead did not happen because it disagrees with popular scientific beliefs.
They claim it has been shown to be scientifically impossible.

Where's the data to show it didn't happen? Got a body you can positively identify as belonging to Yeshu ben Joseph?

[quote[ The above questions make me think of the following question:
Why is it the Theistic Evolutionist can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is scientifically impossible, yet deny the six day creation performed by Jesus Christ as written in the accounts of Genesis...which is also considered as scientifically impossible? [/quote]
Because to do the first you have to commit the second worst crime in science -- use theory to deny data -- while in the second you have data to deny theory.

Understand, Ark Guy? To be consistent as scientists, the resurrection must be acknowledged to be possible.

This has less to do with Bible interpretation than it has to do with doing correct science. To do correct science, you must consider that the resurrection possibly happened.

 

[Vance]

The only thing I would add is that science may state that a particular event *is* impossible, such as the resurrection from the dead.

What this means is that it is impossible "in the natural", following the rules which control the natural world God created.

As Christians we can agree that it is "scientifically impossible", meaning that the event could not happen following the natural laws, but still believe it happened without any problem, since God, the author of the natural laws, can choose to over-ride them at any time He pleases.

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance: But you are doing it again, setting up a strawman so you can knock it down

No strawman...

We have covered this all before.

Christians who believe in an old earth do not do so because a young earth is "scientifically impossible".

Yeah right. The Theo-Evo Sect needs an old earth for their false evolutionary theory to work. Because they believe in this hoax, they present a young earth as scientifically impossible....disregarding the miracles performed by Jesus Christ as per the bible. That much should be rather obvious to you.

Christians who believe in a local flood because a global flood is scientifically impossible.

In complete disregard for what the bible has to say. They claim the bible is incorrect when it describes the flood waters....Now if the bible is incorrect here, where else might it be incorrect? The resurrection? That too is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

God is God and can do any miracle He likes, and if He wanted to make the universe in six seconds, He could. No problem there at all.

true..but the bible says six days, or will you be claiming that a day equals a second?

The problem is not that it is "scientifically impossible" at all. The problem is that the evidence shows very clearly that God did NOT perform His miracle of creation in that particular way. And, the Scripture does not say explicitly that He did. So, why would we disbelieve the evidence God gave us in His creation in favor of one possible reading out of many?

Your faulty presentation of science makes this claim..then you filter Genesis...Gods Word...through your faulty scientific interpretations.
BTW: the scriptures do explicitly say six days and the scripyures do explicitly say Adam was formed from the dust and Eve from his side...sorry.

...would you like me to quote the verses again?

As for the other miracles, the evidence is equally clear that God DID perform the miracle of the resurrection, etc, or there is no evidence at all from God's creation to *disbelieve* it, so I choose to accept it as literal.

There is plenty of reason to disbelieve it occured...outside of a miracle....dead guys don't get up and walk around on day 3 after being dead. Especially suffering the death Jesus Christ did.
JUST LIKE YOU CLAIMS THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR CREATION, THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR THE RESURRECTION...unless a miracle is involved.

The fact that something is "impossible" without God's intervention is NEVER a reason to disbelieve anything since God can always over-ride the natural laws He, Himself, created.

You seem to disbelieve Genesis....and certain passages in the New Testament. You run it through your evo-filter and then deem the bible as incorrrect in certain instances....but don't touch the resurrection.

God can perform any miracle He likes, but He does not always perform it in the way that fallible man have read the Scriptures.

Why would God perform a miracle, tell us about it, then cover up what he really did?

 

[Ark Guy]

The only thing I would add is that science may state that a particular event *is* impossible, such as the resurrection from the dead.

What this means is that it is impossible "in the natural", following the rules which control the natural world God created.

As Christians we can agree that it is "scientifically impossible", meaning that the event could not happen following the natural laws, but still believe it happened without any problem, since God, the author of the natural laws, can choose to over-ride them at any time He pleases.

Funny how you claim natural law made Adam and Eve...rather than what the bible claims...yet consider yourself a bible believing christian.

I have trouble with screwed up logic like that.

 

[Ark Guy]

In the bible we read that there once was wedding which took place at Cana in Galilee. During the wedding the servants gave the master of the banquet some wine to taste. The master of the banquet seemed to really enjoy the taste of the wine. As a matter of fact the master of the banquet took the bridegroom aside and complimented him on bringing out the better wine near the end of the wedding.

If you were to test the wine that the servants gave to the master of the banquet to taste, you would have laboratory results returned to you that indicated it was indeed a beverage that came from a fruit that use to hang on a vine in a vineyard. For all practical purposes the wine had a history. The test results would be irrefutable scientific proof. If you could extract the DNA from the beverage it would be an identical match to the grape DNA. The history of the wine would lead to a grape vine.

But what is the truth? Did the wine really come from a grape vine? The bible tells us in John 2 that the wine did not have its start on a grape vine as the scientific test would have concluded. Rrather Jesus turned some water in clay jars into the wine. Water to wine was it’s simple history.

 

[notto]

Didn't we already have a discussion about the difference between impossible and falifiable/falsified?

The young earth and a worldwide flood HAS been falsified (by Christians, long before evolution came up)

The resurrection HAS NOT been falsified.
The water to wine miracle HAS NOT been falsified.

By not discussing the issue of falsification, Arkguy seems to be trying to avoid scientific method altogether yet somehow claim victory using what science says is "impossible".

The logic escapes me.

Is it impossible for a rock to fall up? Certainly not if a miracle takes place. Can we be for certain that a rock has never fallen up? Nope.

If I drop a rock and it falls down and hits the ground, it leaves evidence that it DID NOT fall up. So, for that rock, the conclusion that it fell up has been FALSIFIED, even though it is not impossible for a rock to fall up through a miracle.

 

[Vance]

Arkguy,

I do not say this lightly, I apologize in advance to all the other posters out there, and I may get slapped on the wrist for it, but:

your posts indicate that you are either incredibly dense, in that you don't even seem to understand the points being made, or are just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" It would be different if your responses at least indicated that you understood the point, just didn't agree with it, but you prove your lack of understanding with every post.

Your posts simply don't make any sense in response to the points being made.

And, your constant attacks against the validity of the religious beliefs of others is against the specific rules of these boards.

Unless you come up with a halfway intelligent response which grasps the points being made and deals with them (the way some other YEC's around here do), then I am not going to bother with you anymore. You are simply not worth the time and effort.

 

[notto]

In the bible we read that there once was wedding which took place at Cana in Galilee. During the wedding the servants gave the master of the banquet some wine to taste. The master of the banquet seemed to really enjoy the taste of the wine. As a matter of fact the master of the banquet took the bridegroom aside and complimented him on bringing out the better wine near the end of the wedding.

If you were to test the wine that the servants gave to the master of the banquet to taste, you would have laboratory results returned to you that indicated it was indeed a beverage that came from a fruit that use to hang on a vine in a vineyard. For all practical purposes the wine had a history. The test results would be irrefutable scientific proof. If you could extract the DNA from the beverage it would be an identical match to the grape DNA. The history of the wine would lead to a grape vine.

But what is the truth? Did the wine really come from a grape vine? The bible tells us in John 2 that the wine did not have its start on a grape vine as the scientific test would have concluded. Rrather Jesus turned some water in clay jars into the wine. Water to wine was it’s simple history.

Now your back to God covering his tracks. The analogy you use, if put to creation, would be that we take DNA from the wine and it tests as apple juice. If creation happened in the bible, not only would the miracle of creation be grand, but the grandest miracles of all would be those that God used to cover the tracks that he created the world in 6 days a short time ago (not to mention covering his tracks after the flood). This to me doesn't fit the nature of God as outlined in the scriptures.

 

[Ark Guy]

Wrong Notto,

When God created Adam he had apparent age.
When God created a tree it had apparent age.

Then again in these instances God wasn't covering his tracks. Why? He told us what he did in six days.

Of course if God used evolution...then he seems to be hiding something with his false representation in the book of Genesis.

 

[troodon]

Wrong Notto,

When God created Adam he had apparent age.
When God created a tree it had apparent age.

Then again in these instances God wasn't covering his tracks. Why? He told us what he did in six days.

Of course if God used evolution...then he seems to be hiding something with his false representation in the book of Genesis.

Niiiiiiiice. Whenever faced with undeniable refutations of a young earth always reply, "ummm...... God made it look that way! Yeah, that's the ticket! God put the bones there, and the varves, and the angular nonconformities, and the starlight, and the pseudogenes, and the massive impact craters that were obviously created by asteroids. God put them all there. But remember, true science shows the earth to be young!"

 

[lucaspa]

The only thing I would add is that science may state that a particular event *is* impossible, such as the resurrection from the dead.

What this means is that it is impossible "in the natural", following the rules which control the natural world God created.

If a scientist says this, he is not stating science. That scientist would be using theory to deny data, and that is wrong.

The theory is that people dead for 36 hours don't come back to life. You can't then say that it is impossible for that to happen. Because, when it does happen, that is data that the theory is wrong.

As Christians we can agree that it is "scientifically impossible", meaning that the event could not happen following the natural laws, but still believe it happened without any problem, since God, the author of the natural laws, can choose to over-ride them at any time He pleases.

But as scientists, you are not doing correct science. Which is why I said Ark Guy's position is about correctly doing science and not about Christianity.

It is wrong to do what you are doing from the science side!

 

[lucaspa]

Wrong Notto,

When God created Adam he had apparent age.
When God created a tree it had apparent age.

The Oomphalos argument again. This was tried in 1858 Ark Guy, by a minister named Phillip Gosse. Gosse argued that God made Adam with a navel.

Asked to write a review of Oomphalos, his friend Charles Kinglsey, a minister and author of Westward Ho! refused and wrote the following letter to Gosse.
"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet discussed above] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."

I would not put this idea into my children's hands for any amount of money.

Of course if God used evolution...then he seems to be hiding something with his false representation in the book of Genesis.

Not at all. The text is clear for anyone with eyes to see that it isn't supposed to be literal.

 

[Ark Guy]

Most of the fossils were created during the flood of Noah.

 

[lucaspa]

Yeah right. The Theo-Evo Sect needs an old earth for their false evolutionary theory to work. Because they believe in this hoax, they present a young earth as scientifically impossible....disregarding the miracles performed by Jesus Christ as per the bible. That much should be rather obvious to you.

Christians discarded a young earth long before evolution came along.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
"Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."

Christians who believe in a local flood because a global flood is scientifically impossible.

Actually, many do because the Bible shows a global flood as portrayed by Creation Science is not Biblical.

[quote ]That too is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. [/quote]

I asked you to show us how it is scientifically impossible. You have to do that, not just shout. Shouting doesn't make it true. Why and how is the resurrection scientifically impossible?

Your faulty presentation of science makes this claim..then you filter Genesis...Gods Word...through your faulty scientific interpretations.
BTW: the scriptures do explicitly say six days and the scripyures do explicitly say Adam was formed from the dust and Eve from his side...sorry.

...would you like me to quote the verses again?

But Genesis 1:26-27 explicitly says men and women were spoken into existence. There, I did give you the verses. Tell me, Ark Guy, if the stories are literal, why do they contradict on this vital point?

There is plenty of reason to disbelieve it occured...outside of a miracle....dead guys don't get up and walk around on day 3 after being dead. Especially suffering the death Jesus Christ did.
JUST LIKE YOU CLAIMS THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR CREATION, THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO FOR THE RESURRECTION...unless a miracle is involved.

1. One difference is that a 6-day creation leaves consequences we can study today. What we observe is directly contrary to those consequences. And evolution is just as much a miracle as zapping things into existence, isn't it?

2. You can't use theory to deny data. Saying "dead guys don't get up and walk around on day 3 after being dead" is a theory. It is tested each and every time a guy dies. If one of them does get up and walks around, then the theory is wrong. Clear?

Let's take another example, and see if you can address it. "Objects on earth fall when released". That's a theory. Drop rocks, water, stickes, bricks, people, etc. and they fall. Now, try a helium balloon. It rises. Do we say it did not rise because it is "scientifically impossible"? NO! We modify the theory!

DUH!

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa:

Not at all. The text is clear for anyone with eyes to see that it isn't supposed to be literal.

Where is it clear? Please explain how.
Then again a dead guy coming back to life can't really happen. It's clear that the gospels really arn't suppose to be taken literally.

 

[Sinai]

Yes, the literal interpretation of the accounts are disproved. Specifically, the scientific theory that is Creation Science or YEC is disproved. The same way that flat earth, geocentrism, aether, or phlogiston as part of combustion is disproved.

I suspect that you probably meant to say that the young earth creationists' interpretation of the scriptures has been disproved. If you examine the actual Hebrew used, a literal translation of it has not necessarily been disproved; it is the merely the interpretation the YECs have chosen to use that is inconsistent with scientific evidence. What the Bible literally says generally tends to line up very nicely with mainstream scientific data.

 

[lucaspa]

Most of the fossils were created during the flood of Noah.

That's standard Flood Geology. But it doesn't work when you examine the fossil record. For instance, why are the horseshoe crabs in the Jurassic a different genus than present ones and found only in the Jurassic? Since they and modern horseshoe crabs are so similar, any way of sorting fossils proposed by Flood geologists ends up putting these fossils in the same layers. Yet they aren't.

More evidence falsifying the Flood as portrayed by Creation Science.

 

[lucaspa]

Then again a dead guy coming back to life can't really happen.

Explain this statement. Why can't it really happen? By your logic a helium balloon can't go up. What you have just stated is simply bad science.

lucaspa:

Not at all. The text is clear for anyone with eyes to see that it isn't supposed to be literal.

Where is it clear? Please explain how.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.