Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[Washington]

Many creationist don't buy evolution because, among other things, they say it flies in the face of reason: witness all the creationist websites devoted to reexamining and debunking the evolutionary evidence; principally that of geology and biology. So they are obviously dedicated to rational considerations (Yeah, I know, but bear with me for a moment.) and the logic of the printed word. Therefore, I expect them to be no less discerning and critical of all claims involving the appearance of life on Earth. Which brings me to their playground, the Christian Bible.




From the King James Bible.
________________________________________________________________________________
FIRST ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

​

3 verses later god creates man and woman.

Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
​

_________________________________________________________________________________
SECOND ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION

Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
​

12 verses later god creates the beasts and fowl.

Gen. 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them
​

3 verses later god creates woman

Gen. 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


​

______________________________________________________________________________

So we have two conflicting accounts here.

In Genesis 1 the order of creation of the animals and humans is

1. Animals
2. Man and woman
​

But in Genesis 2 the order of creation of the animals and humans is

1. Man
2. Animals
3. woman
​

Obviously both can't be correct, at least not with out a whole lot of tap dancing and misdirection. So anyone care to take a stab at explaining these conflicting accounts? Even god couldn't have "Did it" both ways.

 

[gaara4158]

Both of them. God is beyond logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

So anyone care to take a stab at explaining these conflicting accounts?

Genesis 2 is not a creation account --- it's a marriage account.

If it was an account of the Creation, where are the sun, moon, stars, atmosphere, plants, whales, etc.; not to mention the days of Creation themselves?

 

[Washington]

Genesis 2 is not a creation account --- it's a marriage account.

If it was an account of the Creation, where are the sun, moon, stars, atmosphere, plants, whales, etc.; not to mention the days of Creation themselves?

Ah yes, I forgot all about reading the Bible like a creationist: Just ignore the inconvenient or embarrassing.

Genesis 2:

1 Ignore

2 Ignore

3 Ignore

4 Ignore (particularly where it says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, " OR "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" -NIV-.)

5 Ignore

6 Ignore

7 Ignore

8. Ignore

9 Ignore

10 Ignore

11 Ignore

12 Ignore

13 Ignore

14 Ignore.

15 Ignore

16 Ignore

17 Ignore

18 Ignore

19 Ignore

20 Ignore

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;


22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
​

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

i still wonder where the silicates went since adam was created from dust.

 

[Wirraway]

I've been always partial to Navajo creation myths.

 

[juvenissun]

i still wonder where the silicates went since adam was created from dust.

Interesting question.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah yes, I forgot all about reading the Bible like a creationist: Just ignore the inconvenient or embarrassing.

Genesis 2:

1 Ignore

2 Ignore

3 Ignore

​

Hey, Washington. You made the same mistake as I made before (30 years ago). This is God's Book. You could not even begin to understand it before you believe It.

Yes, believe first. Then it will start to make sense. This is the scientific method according to God. No kidding.​

 

[Washington]

Hey, Washington. You made the same mistake as I made before (30 years ago). This is God's Book. You could not even begin to understand it before you believe It.

Yes, believe first. Then it will start to make sense. This is the scientific method according to God. No kidding.

So I assume you are agreeing with AV1611VET that 80% of Genesis 2 can be (has to be) ignored. Or is it that when Genesis 2 says, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (KJV), OR "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" (NIV), it isn't talking about the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created or is an account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, but is talking about a marriage.

I don't know about you, but when I've heard people talking about a marriage I have never heard them talk about it in terms of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.

 

[gaara4158]

Think about what you're saying, juv. Decide that it's right, then you'll understand it. That sounds more like self-deceit followed by rationalization. That's awful.

 

[Garyzenuf]

This is God's Book. You could not even begin to understand it before you believe It.

Yes, believe first. Then it will start to make sense. This is the scientific method according to God. No kidding.

You serious?...That God, what a kidder. Hey, do all religions work on this principle, or just Christianity?

 

[Chalnoth]

Hey, Washington. You made the same mistake as I made before (30 years ago). This is God's Book. You could not even begin to understand it before you believe It.

Yes, believe first. Then it will start to make sense. This is the scientific method according to God. No kidding.

Sorry, but "believe first" is a guaranteed way to mislead yourself. Understand first, then decide whether or not it merits belief. That is the only way to have a hope in hell of discovering some semblance of the truth.

 

[MoonLancer]

Genesis 2 is not a creation account --- it's a marriage account.

Funny i cant find the word marriage anywhere in genesis 2. You should keep looking

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny i cant find the word marriage anywhere in genesis 2. You should keep looking

If you don't know a marriage when you see one, who's the blind one? (Of course, in this day and age of people shacking up, I guess you do have a point.)

 

[tanzanos]

Oh dear! God has been exposed! Not to worry; TBN and Fox News will cover it up and blame the communists and Pagan Europe. No one will know. Whew! I was worried there for awhile that the truth will surface.

Long live Animal Farm

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

i still wonder where the silicates went since adam was created from dust.

Interesting question.

an interesting question that you make no effort to look or provide an answer for! how scientific of you! being inquisitive is for chumps!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

an interesting question that you make no effort to look or provide an answer for! how scientific of you! being inquisitive is for chumps!

lest you think i am merely being mean, allow me to clarify my point. how do you expect us to take your side seriously if you dont seek answers to our questions about the disconnect between genesis and reality? nearly everything proposed by the creationists on this board is speculation based on a poor interpretation of scripture and a worse interpretation of nature. there is no substance to creationism until it finds some factual basis for its claims.

pay attention creationists: if creationism cannot stand on its own then it cannot be considered a legitimate alternative to evolution or any other science.

 

[consol]

From the creationist standpoint I think it would be best not to try and answer this one,
best you forget it, what you don't try to answer you don't need to worry about,
much better to stick to criticising evolution, the followers don't understand evolution
so they won't know if you are telling the truth or not, try not to tackle questions head on,
keep on the move and fudge as much as you can, that way you won't get pinned down.

Creationism is a deep dark hole, so it makes sense to do as little digging as possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

pay attention creationists: if creationism cannot stand on its own then it cannot be considered a legitimate alternative to evolution or any other science.

First of all, I've already answered your silicate question by stating that God could have (and probably did) filter out the silicates.

Second of all, if you want to see who's really paying attention, stroll through some of my posts and see where I have to ask some questions up to five and six times before someone finally answers me, or I'm everything but what my profile says I am, or see where I have to explain something about 15 times before someone even understands what I'm asking.

Thirdly, if you think for one unit of Planck-time that science or evolution stands on its own, I invite you to take this challenge.

Fourthly, for some odd reason, you and others who hide behind the Magen David seem to be strangely absent when your Hebrew authors were being called "ignorant, bronze-age, goat herders", and your Torah is part of a "Talking Donkey Book", etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the creationist standpoint I think it would be best not to try and answer this one,

I wouldn't talk --- from as many challenges as I issue that you guys run from, you'd thing CF was a marathon.