As I have explained, there was farming, then there wasn't for a long time.
Since your model doesn't want to allow any type of dark age, the problem of
the lack of farming applies to the 2 Adam view.
I wrote:
>>GM>2. Do as Hugh Ross does and have Adam created 50,000 years ago.
>This ignores a) the gap between Adam and the first evidence of
>farming. b) This ignores the evidence of human activity such as
>warfare, art, religious activity prior to 50,000 years ago, c) the
>burials of the neanderthals. It leaves no explanation for the flood.
Stephen replied:
>>Again, this is not what Ross believes either. He does not believe this
these earlier hominid species were true man:<<
You misunderstand Stephen. Ross does believe that Adam was created less than
50,000 years ago but he was created as a Homo sapiens. Ross states,
"If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam
and Eve" drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date
within the biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years
ago."Hugh Ross, "Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists," Facts &
Faith, 9:3, p. 3
Here he clearly states that the Biblical view for the time of creation of man
is 10-60 thousand years. Ross states again,
"However, the dates for these finds are well within the
biblically acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve --
somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago according to Bible
scolars who have carefully analyzed the genealogies." Hugh Ross, "Art and
Fabric Shed New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith, p. 2
Ross has set the Bible up for falsification should any evidence be found of
human activities prior to 60,000 years. I would contend that the Golan Venus
(dated at 330,000 years) is just such a piece of evidence. If Hugh is
correct in his view of what the Bible teaches, then the data says that the
Bible is incorrect! I would prefer to not to see an interpretation of the
Bible set it up for such an easy falsification.
glenn