>>The one draw back to the Mediterranean as the flood local is the ancient
age of that event. I have provided much evidence over the years for human
activity, compassion, and moral accountability from millions of years ago
both on this list in the form of numerous posts as well as in my article
"Dating Adam," PSCF June 1999, pp 87-97 and in an upcoming communication in
the Sept. PSCF which discusses the evidence for moral accountability among
fossil men as long ago as 2 myr. (in this regard see
>>This objection should not be seen as a fatal flaw.
The concordist position that 'Genesis complements the evolutionary
record' actually conflates two complements. First, the Genesis text
complements the context of the times. I think that places Genesis as
legend (literary context) within Mesopotamian prehistory (social
context). Dick Fischer pointed to the Ubaid as the social
context for the stories of Adam and Eve. I agree.
Second, the Genesis text complements another context: the origin
story that we moderns know as the evolutionary record.
This second complement, I believe, may be rendered through
different artistic perspectives. Thus, the archaeological
indications for language, art, and spirituality in hominid species
antecedent to Homo sapiens (which you presented in 'Dating Adam')
may be regarded in a variety of ways.
Unfortunately, your suggestion that these archaeological indications
must mean that Adam dates to before the Mediterranean infill (start
of the Pliocene, which you associate with Noah) fails on the
Instead, I prefer to associate these indications with the
declaration of intention in Genesis 1. "Let us make man in our
image and let him have dominion over...". Such an association
does not fail with respect fo either of the two aspects,
especially if one regards Genesis 1 as a vision (of the
evolutionary record by someone in Mesopotamian prehistory).