I see. It's very interesting, don't you think, that the "first human" (according to the Bible) was born when there were already civilizations. It is known, now, that our species is at least 200,000 years old -- but I'm guessing you don't consider them "human" in quite the same way you see Jesus and yourself as human. But what about the people living in Australia at least 50,000 BCE (and possibly as much as 80,000 BCE)? How about the people who created the oldest known civilization in China, the Jiahu, who were extant from about 7,000 BCE to 5,700 BCE? Were they, likewise, not "quite human?"
I'm sure you see my problem -- we have excellent archaeological evidence of what look to be very much like humans all over the world (except Antarctica) before the time the Bible claims Adam was born, so of course I have to assume that they weren't the descendants of Adam. (Oh, unless, like Merlin, he "grows backwards" or "youthens instead of ages.")
Do you have any explanations for this slight anomaly?
Also, here we are, with the most advanced science in the history of the world, helping people to live longer and longer lives, the average lifespan having increased beyond what it has ever been in history, and yet the best we can do (as in the case of Jeanne Calumet of France) is 122 years and 164 days. It seems quite a feat, therefore, for Adam to have live more than 7 1/2 times as long, doesn't it?
I'm sure you can see, I'm just looking for a little help understanding the discrepancies that, to me at least, seem so glaringly obvious.