To which I would like to add my thanks also!
Glenn wants to (as I understand him) retain a literal
person called "Adam," and in so doing is simply
pointing out very compelling arguments that this
person lived, not 6 to 20 ky ago, but well earlier
than that -- 1 to 3 my.
My own view is that a literal "Adam," while a
theological possibility, is probably not factual
history. But this view is not one I hold with
any particular tenacity. Years of reading ICR stuff (for
except for Ramm, they were about the only game in town),
probably inclies me to the view I have, for ICR's
arguments, while highly interesting and even
entertaining, were often too speculative and/or
required too many "ad hocs" to be taken seriously.
For anyone here who has not yet read Glenn's
FOUNDATION, FALL and FLOOD, let me (again)
recommend it. See his web site for details. It is a
heck of a lot better reading than some books (I will
not mention names) which get much more publicity.
Happy 4th!
Burgy