Stephen: <<Thanks. That is *exactly* my point! I may quote your words back to Glenn
in future!>>
I am glad that we agree that semantics are irrelevant. Adam could have been Homo Habilis or Australopithecine.
PM>You are appealing too much to personal statements about an issue
>you have found to be yet unresolved. But its impact on whether or not
>Adam was Homo Habilis or not is not affected by the outcome of this
>discussion. It would merely redefine what Adam really was. But that as
>well is irrelevant.
Stephen: <<It might be "irrelevant" for *you* "what Adam really was" but it is not
"irrelevant" for *me*!>>
Good for you but quite irrelevant.
Stephen <<Indeed, if it is "irrelevant" "what Adam really was", why does Glenn keep
trying to prove that you think that Glenn keeps trying to prove that "Adam
and Eve" were "Homo habilis or Australopithecus"?>>
Or could have been ? And why is it so relevant to you ? After all is it not your faith that has determined who Adam and Eve really were ? Evidence of hypotheses should not really matter to you ?