The foundation of ancient Egypt was by Sahara African/ Shahelian tribes.

The discussion about “pre-Adamites” widely varies in understanding. We know that creatures such as Neanderthals existed, but they don’t appear to be related to humans. I prefer to think of these creatures as bipedal primates (erect apes) who were not created in God’s image. The YUC is forced to assert that they were “cavemen” who lived after Adam. No one can say whether these creatures successfully copulated with humans, but I see no evidence for it.

To conclude that some human races living today are descended from these creatures and have no hope of redemption because they are not created in God’s image is to depart from orthodox Christianity.

For example the word ‘day’ in the bible stems from the Hebrew word ‘yome’ which does not only mean a physical day (24 hours) but means ‘age’ as well.

In other words “seven earth ages”

As for Cain and his spaceship…..The word earth stems from the Hebrew word ‘erets’ and this word also means ‘LAND’

Thus not the whole earth was under water, but the whole land.

We know Adam lived 6,000 years ago, because the Bible actually tells us this. Adam’s Hebrew meaning is having the ability to blush red, to be ruddy.

No other race but the white one, can blush red.

We know the earth is ancient, but we also know that God created Adam only 6,000 years ago. Before Adam the earth was already inhabited by pre-Adamites.

What a relief that Ken Ham has come along to correct Charles Spurgeon’s idiosyncrasies. Just think of what a great preacher Spurgeon could have been if he had hired Ham as a writer. Ham even bowdlerizes Spurgeon’s words in the original! He crosses them out!

Oh, I need to sit for a spell. The brazenness of the Infallible Ham is beyond all description.

The commenter is correct that Answers in Genesis accuses Christians who disagree with them of worshiping a different God.

By the way, Rick Saenz is a very talented and interesting person. He’s the one who joined RC Sproul Jr’s church and was then critical of Sproul and moved away after Sproul abused his authority (and church members) to the point that he was defrocked. Now Sproul has joined Doug Wilson’s enterprise and is very openly trying to turn his little mountain town “coffee-colored” through miscegenation. You don’t often come across men as honorable and admirable as Saenz.

I completely agree with his level-headed approach to obstinacy on the creation period:

“Answers in Genesis, along with many others, are insisting that Christians adhere to principles that have barely been articulated, much less submitted to the church for discussion and consideration. It may very well be that those principles are clearly scriptural and will be easily accepted by all.” Or maybe not. And here’s a shocking idea: We might even disagree…and still be fellow Christians. I know, it’s alarming.

I think the short answer is that we just don’t know. As is true of many of the details surrounding creation, God chose not to make it very clear to us.

But you’re correct that the Bible does not refer to Noah as the father of all, in the sense that it refers to Adam. It’s our opinion that there appear to be genealogical gaps in Genesis 10, and using the Bible itself as the key to interpreting the Bible, there is no way to make sense of the idea that this chapter is intended to lay out the family tree of every human being who lived after the Flood. Rather, God is telling His covenant story.

Would you agree that Goliath and the sons of Anak were descended from giants (Nephilim) who predated the Flood, and whose line continued (in part) though they were not saved by the ark? We see them in Numbers 13 as well as in the time of David and Samuel. How did they get there if a global Flood destroyed all but 8 Sethites?

Again, I don’t think it’s a question that can be definitively answered, but there it is.

Much of what I’ve read on this subject has been from Timothy Martin and his book Beyond Creation Science. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but it is interesting and it ties in creation with eschatology.

One other question that I would pose to the authors of this website is how we should interpret statements in the Old Testament like in Psalm 49:2 which speaks of sons of Adam and sons of men, usually translated low and high or something else. Is this a redundancy, or something else? Could it be making a distinction between the covenental people of Adam, and people generally? Naming a patriarch by his covenental offspring isn’t unusual. I’m thinking of “in Isaac shall thy seed (Abraham’s) be called” from Romans 9. Just a few questions that I’ve been pondering over. Thanks.