Adam was created on the 3rd day

If you are serious, you clearly have no clue about how academia works! The top institutions in the world do not try to squeeze people into a rigid mold, but teach them to THINK and thus allow them to take any position that they can defend in a scholarly way. And Mosaic authorship, though at present a minority view, is certainly defensible. It is the second-class "wanna be" institutions which tend to indoctrinate and squeeze into a mold.I personally know a number of PhD biblical scholars who believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; they graduated from places like Berkeley and Cambridge. And of course there are a number of world-class biblical scholars who believe this, like Gordon Wenham (PhD Cambridge), Bruce Waltke (PhD Harvard), Gleason Archer (PhD Harvard), R. Laird Harris (PhD Dropsie), and Eugene Merrill (PhD Columbia). And though he has no PhD, Kenneth Kitchen is a serious scholar. Some leading biblical scholars of previous generations who defended Mosaic authorship are Edward J. Young (PhD Dropsie), Robert Dick Wilson (PhD Princeton) and Merrill F. Unger (PhD Johns Hopkins).

I agree with your main point; it would be difficult to convince a skeptic of Mosaic authorship. And it's probably not essential to the biblical message. It's probably off-topic, but I'll give just a couple of points that I remember. You can doubtless find more by looking at a good scholarly conservative biblical commentary (e.g. Word or Zondervan biblical commentary series).
1) Deuteronomy is written in the format of a Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty, which was long dead by the time that the documentary hypothesis dates the Pentateuch. If not written in the time of Moses, this was highly anachronistic. How would they even know the style of this ancient form?
2) Analysis of the literary arguments of books and sections of the Pentateuch shows highly detailed patterns which cross the accepted "JEDP" boundaries. Often these contain literary constructs such as chiasms which go across different supposed sources. This would not be possible if a redactor merely pieced sources together. Any supposed "redactor" would be more like a modern author, placing his own structure on the whole account.Here's one reference that I found quickly, but I'm sure you can find more: Mackey

Maybe; I was in a hurry. If any of you guys REALLY want to research this, I've given you plenty to start with. I have suggested some commentaries, and you can look at the wiki entries on the scholars that I listed; this lists their most important writings, many of which are scholarly works on the Pentateuch.

OK, perhaps that was a bad suggestion. I don't know anything about the author. I just took a cursory glance at the article, and it appeared to be a scholarly discussion promoting Mosaic authorship. If it was a bad example, I apologize. That's what we sometimes call research! You might have to actually go to a library and look at it, instead of relying on second and third hand opinions. If you do, you'll find that it truly IS a scholarly work, even though you may disagree with its position.Here are some specific suggestions:
Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
Philip Budd, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 5, Numbers
Duane Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 6B, Deuteronomy
John Durham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 3, Exodus
Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
R.K. Harrison, Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series
John Hartley, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 4, Leviticus
James Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt
Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents
Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament
Eugene Merrill, Deuteronomy, New American Commentary Series (I took a class from the author; he is a true world-class scholar)
Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Bruce Waltke, Genesis (I own this one, and recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 1, Gen 1-15 (I own this one, and highly recommend it)
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 2, Gen 16-50
Gordon Wenham, Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Gordon Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary SeriesNote that I've added some additional authors who were not on my earlier list. The above are all writings from conservative scholars who believe in Mosaic authorship. Of the above, the Word commentary series is probably the most scholarly in style (lots of grammatical details from the Hebrew). The others are more accessible to those who don't read Hebrew.I'm sure you can find negative reviews of these works from mainstream biblical scholars. And if you are lazy rather than scholarly, you may want to reject them based on this without actually looking at any of the works. But if anyone wants to really understand the scholarly basis for Mosaic authorship, I would recommend actually going to the sources directly. Whether or not you agree with Mosaic authorship, I think you'll find that there is scholarly basis to be made for it.

No, I don't know of any, sorry. But I've never looked for any.The reason for my posts in this thread was simple. I saw comments ridiculing the idea of Mosaic authorship and claiming that there was no scholarly support for it. These comments themselves were very dogmatic and unscholarly, and appeared to come from folks who have no training in biblical or theological areas. So I tried to raise the level of the discussion and suggest that there actually is some good biblical scholarship which DOES support Mosaic authorship. But I sense resistance to this, and a desire to try to dismiss the data without even examining it!This may be harsh, but the approach that I've seen here toward biblical scholarship is not much different from the YEC approach to scientific scholarship. People initially make dogmatic, unscholarly claims about subjects in which they have no expertise. Then when scholarly data is presented which does not fit nicely into their simplified view of the world, they seek to dismiss it. They do not have the inclination to study the subject and analyze the data on their own, so they go to their favorite "experts" for a verdict (mainstream naturalistic biblical scholarship on the one hand, AIG or Sarfati or Morris on the other). Then they can feel justified in dismissing uncomfortable data without a scholarly examination.