Quote# 36991

A dozen seashell necklaces (or perhaps bracelets) were discovered in a cave in Morocco, North Africa. The discovery surprised archaeologists who dated the ornamental jewelry at 82,000 years old but previously believed that humans had not developed such art until around 50,000 years ago.

Dating such discoveries has led some Christians to wonder when God created humans. Many “progressive creationists” have gradually pushed their range of dates back: 10,000–25,000 years, then 10,000–35,000, up to 60,000, and sometimes up to 100,000 years.

A clear reading of Genesis, on the other hand, shows that mankind was created about 6,000 years ago, but all vestiges of the earliest cultures were destroyed during the Flood. These artifacts, found in post-Flood geologic formations, must be less than 4,500 years old.

The dating methods of secular archaeologists are based on incorrect assumptions, and the key to correct dates is the infallible Word of God.

Unknown, Answers in Genesis 19 Comments [3/31/2008 12:28:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Paradox

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Multiple scientific verifications are nothing compared to the uneducated ravings of cavemen.

1/17/2009 12:21:54 PM


In other words if a creationist discovered this he'd say "huh? must be less than 4,500 years old, better destroy them just in case"

Can't do that with the Spinx though, can ya
Or a little something called CHINA

1/17/2009 1:44:53 PM


This always bears repeating when reading anything from AiG.
From their own Statement of Faith

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

1/17/2009 2:03:25 PM


A pity that stupidity cannot be outlawed.

1/17/2009 2:15:04 PM


Too bad that there are so many things that just skullfucks that theory of yours.

Not only biology, but history. China for example.

1/17/2009 4:45:39 PM

Petter Häggholm

Presumably, even if this story is in any sense true, the seashells were dated -- so what we have is an alleged age of seashells that were used to make jewellery, not of the jewellery itself per se. These shells could be anywhere from freshly dead molluscs, to thousands and thousands of years old at the time of being turned into decorations.

Furthermore, carbon dating has been known to be an unreliable dating method for a few types of organisms, such as, notably, seashells.

12/14/2009 9:29:27 PM

Jack The Slipper

"A clear reading of Genesis, on the other hand, shows that mankind was created about 6,000 years ago"
I'd bet a weeks pay this guy can't say where in Genesis it says that.

7/15/2011 10:28:22 AM


Therese is no "clear reading" in Genesis. Did God create man first and then animals, or animals first and then man?
Evidence says man is over 300 000 years old, that old fairy tale book says 6000. "Who ya gonna call?"

7/15/2011 10:58:24 AM


When I understand this weird blabber correctly, this fundie is trying to say:

"Science found human ornamental artifacts which are much older than previous scientific theories deemed to be possible, therefore science is wrong! Therefore mankind was created much more recent! Like it is said in the Bible! Hallelujah!"

7/15/2011 1:17:14 PM


A clear reading of Genesis will find NO DATE of the Earth or man nor will any other book of the Bible. The 6000 year old Earth is Dogma, an invention of a preist 150 years ago based on no dates or facts.

That you Fundies believe this is in the Bible, let alone Genesis, demonstrates one repeating trait of fundamentalism: None of you have ever read the Bible

7/16/2011 6:51:27 AM

Professor von SCIENCE!

Yeah, 6000 years old. I suppose you'd believe me if I told you that I'm going apple picking tomorrow with scooby-doo?

@Petter Häggholm; Well, that's actually an interesting fact. I can't speak to whether or not seashells are actually that age but I feel certain that Unknown is still and idiot willingy to ignore all of the other evidence.

7/11/2013 6:30:19 PM

Quantum Mechanic

More horse shit from lying scum.

6/3/2014 9:47:15 AM

Chapter and verse, please, where a "clear reading" says "mankind was created about 6,000 years ago".

6/3/2014 10:19:09 AM

"The dating methods of Bishop Ussher are based on incorrect assumptions, and the key to correct dates is science."


6/3/2014 10:20:52 AM

Pink Jackboots


Oh, and BTW, isn't 'Bishop' a Catholic position?

6/3/2014 10:25:16 AM


The Anglican Church of Ireland had Archbishops, which I understand was more correctly Ussher's title. Bishops exist in several religions, not just Catholicism.



"Within the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic and Independent Catholic churches and in the Assyrian Church of the East, bishops claim apostolic succession, a direct historical lineage dating back to the original Twelve Apostles."

"Some Protestant churches including the Lutheran and Methodist churches have bishops serving similar functions as well, though not always understood to be within apostolic succession in the same way. "

6/3/2014 10:50:02 AM


You have to read more than Genesis to even get an inkling on how long ago God supposedly created the world, stupid. It still doesn't have one iota of scientific merit. Plus, some fundies claim that in The Beginning, people became 900 years old; how then can you count "begats" back to Creation?

There are literally mountains of "vestiges" of earlier culture and prehistory, thousands of museums full, all over the world. Those artifacts, found 82 000 years down in the geological column, must be about 82 000 years old.

The dating methods of fundie bible thumpers are based on not-even-wrong assumptions, and the key to correct dates is secular science. But as all valid science is secular, the word "secular" is kinda superfluous there...

6/3/2014 11:57:33 AM

Quantum Mechanic


12/19/2014 3:32:12 PM


All those scientists are wrong, because you don't want them to be right? Science doesn't work that way, sweetie.

2/24/2018 9:44:32 PM

1 | top: comments page