Many people hold to the notion that man-like beings existed long before Adam and may even have been his contemporary. The idea is usually hazy and half-formed, while comfort is drawn from the fact that many of the spiritual giants of Christendom have given their approval to pre-Adamic or pre-Adamite man. Those seeking biblical support admit this is not explicit but point out that the Bible makes no claim to be a complete record of the history of the world.
Dobbs, Francis. 1800. A Concise View from History... Dublin: J. Jones.
Fleming, Sir John Ambrose. 1935. The Origin of Mankind viewed from the standpoint of revelation & research. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.
Genesis 1 gives us an overview of the creation of everything, including man. But man is of such importance in the creation (a point which evolutionists deny), that God uses most of Chapter 2 to focus in on additional details on the creation of the humankind. We can learn a lot about who and what man is from these details. Before going any further with the study read Genesis 2:7-25 to get an overview of our topic.
Introduction.The study of early man is known as paleoanthropology and, although scientific techniques are used, this discipline deals with non-repeatable and non-observable events of the past and by definition cannot be considered as a science. The exercise begins by assuming that man evolved from the animal Kingdom then looking for evidence that would confirm it.
Photo: Neandertal skull. Courtesy of Luna04. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.
Trust is an important concept in science. Most people believe that scientists strive for truth. But if scientists make sensitive and not-explicitly-mentioned initial assumptions, how much can you trust their conclusions?
1. F. Weidenreich, Trends of Human Evolution, Viking Fund Memorial Volume (New York: Washburn and Wolffson, 1949), p. 9.
2. M.L. Weiss. and A.E. Mann, Human Biology and Behavior, An Anthropological Perspective, 4th Edition, (New York: Little Brown and
The King James translation speaks of there being "giants in the land" in the pre-Flood and immediate post-Flood world (Genesis 6:4 and Joshua 12:13). Medieval churches often had fossil bones on display, purporting to be part of some ancient giant and, in this way, sustain belief among their congregation.
Ref: Bonderson, Jan. 1997. A Cabinet of Medical Curbside, NY.: Cornell University Press.
Textbooks often depict our "evolutionary ancestors" as brutish, savage apemen who dwelled in caves. Every couple of years the scientific world is excited by the discovery of fossil remains of a supposed ancestor of man. Each new discovery is, in its turn, debunked: proven to be modern man or some form of ape. But the public impression of the "caveman" as man's ancestor remains, unshaken by the discrediting of the supposed proofs.
1. What can the creationist make of these cavemen?
Is it possible to describe them in some other way than as the evolutionary precursor to man?
In the 1920′s J. Harland Bretz, a secular geolgoist proposed to his
colleagues evidence for a massive Flood across eastern Washington. He
was rejected by the scientific community because what was proposing was