What was that question again? 
*Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
There is a third theory which suggests that both of the first two theories were concocted by a wily editor of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in order to increase the universal level of uncertainty and paranoia and so boost the sales of the Guide. This last theory is of course the most convincing as The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is the only book in the whole of the known universe to have the words “DON’T PANIC” inscribed in large friendly letters on the cover.*
Stranger
As for the rest of the discussion regarding the credibility of the book of Genesis as a literal (if mistranslated) record of events and the existence (or not) of a Biblical Adam and Eve, this underscores the entire issue. We have but one canonical (and oft-translated) record of Biblical creation and of the origins, or indeed existence, of Adam and Eve. There are no correlating records and no physical evidence that this or any other events occuring in Genesis, or in fact the entire Old Testament, occured as stated or (often) even at all. Therefore, any approach to the issue using the scientific method is going to come smack into a solid wall and return “Error 404: file or directory not found”.
Science cannot say that Adam did or did not exist per se, though an examination of gene lines very, very strongly suggests that human beings did not originate from a single pair of humans roughly 6000 years ago, and does display a very strong argument that humans are along a genetic legacy that leads back to other primate ancestors, earlier placental mammals, et cetera. Similarly, any literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth becomes untenable in the face of modern biology, geology, and cosmology, unless you are willing to interpret the language in an absurdly loose fashion. In any case, neither the book of Genesis nor any other part of the Bible provide predictive or testable claims (all the moreso for being reintrepreted whenever it turns out that the more literal readings, or previous interpretations, are at dramatic odds with the objective experience of natural laws).
Science can no more test Biblical claims sans evidence than it can answer the question of why Tolkien’s Great Ring of Power can’t simply be melted down into an ingot and chucked into the bog to dispose of it. As for Adam and Eve, science can’t say whether the story is a) true, b) false, or c) invented by a blind and drunken poet named Roberto who pandered it in order to succor favor with the voices in his head.
Stranger
Now, time to play creationist bingo!
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html
Tim, I haven’t read this thread, but you need to get in contact with me. I’ll read this later on, but we’re philosophical/theological bros.
Good. Maybe you can answer the questions he hasn’t or can’t answer.