Languages and the Creationist account.

If you mean the Hebrew bible, yes this is a late comer in the ancient world. However, I find it mysterious that Genesis depicts the history of modern man [speech endowed kind] with remarkable credibility. There is no other document which lists names, dates, places and events dating 5000 to 6000 years which matches Genesis. I know of no name, nation, city, king, monument, etc - older than that depicted in Genesis - there is no history beyond 6000.

Beyond about 6,000 years ago you enter the realm of prehistory and that is defined as before-written history.

But there is a lot of history prior to that date. It is the job of archaeologists to read that history, and we do it quite well.

And if you include paleontology we go back millions of years with human ancestors.

As far as "remarkable credibility" -- for that you have to ignore whoppers like talking snakes and global floods and the tower of Babel.

In response to my statement that, "It is the job of archaeologists to read that history, and we do it quite well" you wrote:

After a lifetime of study, William Corliss concluded, "The entire picture of human exploration and colonization of our planet is probably radically different from what we have been led to believe".

Corliss was not an archaeologist, and from his writings, seems to have been on the fringe of a lot of different fields. Here is his obit:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/corliss-obit/

British scholar Richard Rudgley summed up his study of the ancient world by saying, "the widely accepted view of the human story is wildly inaccurate" and "preconceived opinions have repeatedly led to the rejection of evidence that does not fit with present archaeological dogmas."

Here is the Wiki article on Rudgley:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rudgley

Not exactly mainstream either.

How about getting some statements from real working archaeologists and from peer-reviewed journals. There are literally hundreds of such journals and they have a lot more credibility than the two sources you posted here.