<< I might point out that many anthropologists, including Richard Leakey,
Franz Weidenreich (the excavator of Peking Man),Milford Wolpoff, Rachael
Caspari, Jan
Jelinek, and others have suggested that there really should only be one
species of man over the past 2 million years, this species would be Homo
sapiens.
>>
That is a most astounding comment. Is this "suggestion" taken seriously by
paleoanthropologists? Are references from the authors you listed available?
I like the comment. It fits into Genesis 1: 26-30 very well, where the
implication is that God created human beings as *human* from the outset, in
His image to have dominion over the earth. These were the "adam" in my view,
with no Adam at their head. Gen. 1 knows nothing of Adam.
In your post of July 2 you stated that you felt more comfortable with Adam,
being the head of the whole human species from the very start. You said, "I
feel much better if Adam was the progenitor of all." Where, in your view,
does Adam fit into the one-species picture, assuming that human species is
only one species, and Homo sapiens at that? Would Adam (and Eve) be the
first human(s) who walked upright on two legs out of the jungle onto the
savannah?
In your July 2 post you also stated that "I respect Dick's position very
much. But I don't agree with it. I worry about the problem that only semites
were capable of having a relationship with God. While my wife, a semite,
might like this, I, a non-semite, don't."
If you and your wife lived in the preChristian era that might have been a
problem. But not today. Everything changed, as you know, with the birth,
life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Race, ethnicity, nationality,
gender, social status no longer matter, thanks to Christ. So you and I are
capable of having a relationship with God, through Christ, even though we are
not of Adam's biological lineage.
Bob