8. 



date of the creation in Genesis (B.C. 4004), during which period the 

 face of the earth underwent manifold and great changes. 



Now, in the name of common sense and reason, does this hypothesis 

 agree with and corroborate, as it is said to do by some divines, the 1st 

 Bible story of creation, in any manner at all ? I maintain that the 

 man who replies in the affirmative does an injustice to his reasoning 

 faculties and outrages the common sen^e of his fellows. The theory 

 of creation is absolutely opposed to that of evolution on every point. 



Now let us examine the second narrative, as given in the second and 

 third chapters of Genesis. Here we have a direct contradiction of the 

 story in the first chapter ; for we are told that god created the earth, 

 the heavens, vegetation and man, but not woman, all in one day. We 

 are also told that there had been no rain upon the earth, and yet that 

 " there went up a mist from the earth," which we know is impossible. 

 " But," say the orthodox, " everything is possible with god." The 

 reply of the evolutionist is, " Can god, then, make a stick with one 

 end only ?" God next planted a garden, in which he placed his newly 

 made man, after giving him instructions to eat of every tree within it, 

 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of which 

 was not to be touched, and the penalty of disobedience being instant 

 death. Then, in fresh contradiction of the first narrative, beasts of the 

 field and birds were created, after man ; after which Adam, the man, 

 named them all ; but how he acquired the power of speech necessary 

 for such a feat is not recorded. For absurdity the next part of the 

 narrative exceeds all that has preceded it. God created cattle and 

 birds in abundance, but yet could not manufacture a suitable partner 

 for the man; so he adopted the strange device of taking from Adam's 

 body, while he slept, one of his ribs, with which he made a woman. 

 Now it must strike every thoughtful man and woman that this act was 

 the yery acme of stupidity, for surely it would have been far easier to 

 have created the woman at once by another fiat, or to have created a 

 spare rib with which to make the woman. To attribute such conduct 

 to the great author is surely the height of irreverence. 



It is quite evident that both these stories were not written by one 

 author, and that both cannot be true, for they totally contradict each 

 other, and are written in quite different styles, the deity himself being 

 differently designated in each. We a-re told by certain parties that if 



