If you Accept Old Earth Creation, Where do you Put Human Long Ages?

Today's article on CMI enters a letter, from which I quote:

But I also loved science, and I had accepted that the earth is billions of years old. I saw no conflict with the Bible, in believing in a 'God of long ages', because I knew He was the Creator. I believed there was a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Fall, but assumed that the long ages of mankind were after that.

“CMI gave me a faith worth sharing”
https://creation.com/faith-worth-sharing

So, the writer is putting Lascaux and Altamira after Adam, but as long ago as Lascaux and Altamira are dated as.

Fr. Fulcran Vigoroux was only taking prehuman creation into "long days" of creation, contradicting presumably inadvertently Mark 10:6. But some guys now have to deal with Carbon dates. If Lascaux and Altamira are for the first 18 000 to 15 000 BP and for the latter 15 500 to 13 500 BP, in real years, not just putting the numbers in understood quotation marks as a systematically false dating, does that imply Lascaux and Altamira are after Adam, as the writer thought, or before Adam, as some others have thought?

Either way, it is pretty disastrous to Christianity.

Cro-Magnon, the population group associated with these caves, is anatomically modern man.

If they were pre-Adamites, Adam was not first man, and therefore hardly ancestral to all mankind. He theoretically could still have been so, we Christians believe Noah is ancestor to all men who live now on Earth (supposing Henoch hasn't come back yet with Elijah for Apocalypse 11), and Noah was not the first man.

But practically this poses difficulties, since the archaeology associated with Americas and Australia involves carbon dates clearly earlier than the ones for either 4000 or 5200 - 5500 BC, as archaeologists carbon date this.

Now, that would mean, big problem of how Amerindians or Aborigines of Australia could all descend from Adam.

On the other hand, this writer and some others say instead, earliest Aborigines, Amerindians as well as the painters in Lascaux and Altamira were descended from Adam and Eve. Fine, does away with the racist problem.

How, if so, were the stories of their creation day (Genesis 2) or their fall (Genesis 3) transmitted?

On the one hand, we have not found any identified and deciphered writing for those Carbon dated millennia. If they are a carbon mirage, due to initially lower Carbon 14, not too problematic, perhaps. But if they really are millennia rather than a few centuries, it would be equivalent to proof at least some stages lacked writing. And if so, could one trust oral tradition over 10's of 1000's of years? Especially one which would if so also have severely truncated the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11?

One tried to get out of the impass by claiming Moses could have received Genesis 2 and 3 in a vision.

There is a tradition he received the six days of creation, perhaps seventh day of rest, of Genesis 1 (arguably up to Genesis 2:4?) in a vision. There is no tradition he was any different in Genesis 2 to 11 (from 2:5 on) than in Genesis 12 to 50 - the final co-author and redactor of previous partial accounts which he put into coherent shape.

So, I think a real Christian - one who accepts doctrine, not just "values" in a vague way - will have to admit that his position, our position, since it's mine too, involves carbon dates for Lascaux and Altamira, according to current calibration from uniformitarian perspective, being misleading, unless re-interpreted.

As I promoted here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

Same observation is of course even more sharply underligned if we take into account Neanderthals and Denisovans, because:

• both have intermarried with the Cro-Magnon type, and therefore left traces in some modern populations, meaning they should be Adamites, otherwise there would be a culpability of bestiality, of taking advantage of a non-human beast, who had no free will, involved, apart from man being created separately and therefore arguably not being interfertile with any non-human creature;
• Neanderthals have shown clear signs of human - that is rational, also known as "symbolic" behaviour, like art, burials, a gene for the brain and a bone for the throat being adapted to speech.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bagnolet
St. Henry I, Emperor
Sts Joel and Esra
13.VII.2019