> It would
>be "disproved" if (for example) the Biblical account of modern man's
>origin and early development was found to be fundamentally
>un-historical (eg. if Adam and his sons could not possibly have been
>New Stone-Age farmers who originated in the Middle East between 10
>and 50 thousand years ago).
>
I would then suggest that the 2-Adam view has been disproven. Genesis 4:21
says that Jubal was the first to make a flute. His brother Jabal was the
father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. These two guys are
descendants of Adam.
But the first flute was made by a Neanderthal who lived 45,000 years ago at a
time when there was no neolithic farming.
(see http://www.zrc-sazu.si/www/iza/piscal.html) And he did not live in the
Middle East, he lived in the Balkans. If this Neandertal is a descendant of
Adam, then your view is falsified.
Stephen further wrote:
>See above. I find this a bit rich, coming from Glenn who claims that
>Adam was a 5.5 million-year old Homo habilis, without a scrap of
>scientific or Biblical evidence! :-) There is *not one* scientific
>authority anywhere who believes that Homo habilis existed 5.5 million
>years ago:
Obviously you had not received my "Early Man (Homo) at 4.2 myr" yet. While
they do not say homo habilis, there are experts who beleive that some species
of our genus was actually there at that time. Sorry, Stephen you are wrong
again.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm