>Also, I draw a distinction between Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 Adam.
>Glenn regards the "man" of Genesis 1:26-27 and the "Adam" of Genesis
>2 as one and the same. Therefore, when he finds evdidence of
>tool-making in Homo habilis, he concludes that the Adam of Genesis 2
>was a Homo habilis.
It is more than just tool making. I would once again like to point out
that Homo habilis had the same brain structures which allow us to speak.
These are impressed on the inside of their crania as are ours. While you
have always dismissed speech in habilis Dean Falk, one of the leading
authorities on the brain structure of fossil man believes they could
speak. Since she has actually looked at the fossil material and you and I
haven't, I would defer to her opinion. She writes:
"But monkeys don't have language and humans do. Are [141/142] there
morphological manifestations of human brains that (a) correlate with
functional lateralizations including language and (b) are capable of
leaving traces in the hominid fossil record? Indeed there are. Shape
asymmetries of the frontal and occipital lobes, known as petalias, exist
in human brains (and to a lesser degree in brains of monkeys and apes) and
are statistically associated with handedness in humans. Further, a
characteristic sulcal pattern associated with Broca's speech area in left
frontal lobes is present in human but not in ape brains. Both humanlike
petalis and the pattern of sulci associated with Broca's area have been
detected on endocranial casts (endocasts) from the early part of the
hominid fossil record.
"The oldest evidence for Broca's area to date is from KNM-ER 1470, a
H.habilis specimen from Kenya, dated at approximately two million years
ago. From that date forward, brain size 'took off,' i.e., increased
autocatalytically so that it nearly doubled in the genus Homo, reaching
its maximum in Neanderthals. If hominids weren't using and refining
language I would like to know what they were doing with their
autocatalytically increasing brains (getting ready to draw pictures
somehow doesn't seem like enough)."~Dean Falk, Comments, Current
Anthropology, 30:2, April, 1989, p. 141-142.
A being who speaks must be considered human in the sense of Genesis 2.
Your quotation of Kidner deals only with tools. What most christians
don't deal with is the evidence for speech among the earliest fossils of
the genus Homo.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm