Yes, they do.
This discussion has about as much meaning as an argument between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic on how to treat Mary, mother of Jesus. We will not agree.
What this discussion does prove is that creationism does not belong in a classroom of any kind, because it is faith, not science.
In point of fact they do not, and I will explain why.
It is a common literary device used by historians of all times to lay out a narrative in a framework and then to revisit key points of that framework later.
For example, a biography of President Lincoln might lay out a general sketch of his life, mentioning his debates with Douglass in passing, and then revisit those debates in a later chapter in great detail.
Likewise, in the Genesis narrative a sketch of the creation is proffered from nothingness to the first Sabbath.
Then the narrative becomes more specific and describes the creation of man and woman in more explicit detail.
Most books are written in this way, in fact - a general overview first and then focus on what the author considers important details later.This discussion has about as much meaning as an argument between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic on how to treat Mary, mother of Jesus.
What makes the discussion meaningful is when both parties acknowledge the facts at hand and then come to the conclusion that they interpret the facts differently.
The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.
Whether one believes the Genesis narrative to be accurate is a nother matter.
One can argue against the historicity of Genesis in a variety of ways without making the embarrassing mistake of projecting inconsistencies onto the narrative which are not there.
What this discussion does prove is that creationism does not belong in a classroom of any kind, because it is faith, not science.
Not really.
What it points out is that science class should focus on hard science like the mechanics of genetics and physical morphology and not present unproven hypotheses as fact.