Apart from there being absolutely no evidence for Adam except in the stories that you now call myths you mean?
So, you know that something doesn't exist if the only evidence for it is written down in a text? Like I said, myth does not mean a book of fairytales made out of whole cloth. There is truth behind it.
Well, we know that H. Sapiens evolved over hundreds of thousands of years from ape-like ancestors. Homo was not formed out of clay in an act of creation, so there was obviously no Adam.
I am sorry. I do not follow you at all. I know good and well the evolution of homo. Whether adam was actually formed out of clay or not is irrelevant. This says absolutely nothing as to whether or not adam existed.
The global flood you now also accept as bunkum but you're still trying to reconcile your new knowledge with the old. You'll soon work out that none of it works and that the only rational conclusion is agnostic. Most people at that point seem to remain vaguely deistic, some of us throw the whole thing out.
I believe there is a God. I believe he has revealed what he wants us to know about himself in the Bible. Just because I have thrown out old interpretations of the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible itself is a pack of lies. Much of what the bible says historically has been revealed to be true through archaelogy. Obviously the book is not equivalent to Alice in Wonderland.