7 things that are older than Ken Ham’s universe

Young-earth creationists say that the universe is 6,000 years old. Scientists say the universe is around 14 billion years old.

Young-earth creationists say this is because scientists are part of a vast, nefarious conspiracy designed to cast doubt on the literal words of a literal Bible by the evil practice of measuring and counting things. I’m not a scientist, but I am part of this conspiracy (the only way to make such a conspiracy work is to include all sorts of non-scientists — doctors, manufacturers, engineers, teachers, librarians, journalists, hobbyists, etc.).

So as part of my contribution to our old-universe conspiracy, here is a list of Seven Things Recently in the News That Are Older Than Young-Earth Creationists’ Universe:

Ken Ham says the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Mark Driscoll says the universe may be older than that, but the human race is only 10,000 years old. This portrait of a woman is 26,000 years old.

1. A 55,000-year-old accumulation of hyrax urine. (Bonus: Hyraxes are my favorite biblical animal.)

2. A 26,000-year-old portrait of a woman carved from a mammoth tusk.

3. Whale fossils found under a California highway belong to the genus Morawanocetus. They date from the early-mid Miocene epic, 17 to 19 million years ago, “making them the youngest known toothed whales.”

4. 500,000-year-old Siberian stalactites and stalagmites are helping us understand climate history.

5. The 33,000-year-old skull of a partially domesticated wolf helps us learn about the history of man’s best friendship.

6. Monorhaphis chuni is a kind of sea sponge. This one, from the East China Sea, lived for about 11,000 years.

7. ”Adam.” Scientists used to think that the genetic common male ancestor of the Y chromosome all men now carry lived somewhere between 60,000 and 140,000 years ago. But it turns out our Y chromosome traces back to a male who lived at least 338,000 years ago.

 

 

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I was arguing with a man on Facebook about that 33,000 year old skull. According to him, superior scientists have not only proven that the skull is actually human, but is also several hundred millions of years old, proving that humanity and dinosaurs co-existed in the Garden of Eden.

    Yeah. Little things like “reality” don’t matter to certain people.

  • Makabit

    I also love hyraxes. They are the best.

  • stardreamer42

    Over half the comments on the mammoth-tusk carving are guys asking how they can be so sure it’s a woman. Somewhat eye-rolling, but it is a legitimate question. I’m guessing it’s because the hairstyle looks feminine. 

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

     No beard? (did guys shave 26000 years ago?)

  • Porky26030

    They don’t just think it’s a woman, they think it’s one specific woman: the ~40 year old woman whose grave is set apart from the others found at the site.  The occupant of that grave and the carving each show evidence of left-side facial distortion.
    If true, this is the oldest known depiction of a specific individual, and could even be a self-portrait.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Well done, young Clark. Your check from the Grand Masters will be in the mail.

  • arcseconds

    Hyraxes? The KJV has ‘coney’, which means rabbit.

    And we all know the KJV is divinely inspired.

    There are no hyraxes in the Bible.

  • JessicaR

    I actually just saw that carving of a woman in person! She’s part of an Ice Age Art exhibit at the British Museum and it’s fantastic. And unsurprisingly very moving, to see how the need to create has always been part of us. From flutes made of bone, to the remains of a rod puppet that they mounted to still cast its shadows on the wall. Any Brit Slacktivites I highly recommend checking it out. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/eva.leppard.9 Eva Leppard

    I’m jealous! That must have been fabulous to see.

  • The_L1985

     How is a clearly-canine skull human?

  • GDwarf

     

    How is a clearly-canine skull human?

    Clearly it’s a werewolf skull, thus proving its connection to Satan.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Lycanthropy? Well, not quite ‘anthro’, I guess.

  • misanthropy_jones

    like hard physical evidence is going to have any effect on ham and his ilk…

  • Persia

    I’m impressed that they managed to keep their toilets going for thousands of years. Gold star, little dudes.

  • Tricksterson

    Kind of a mutant beehive haido.  Wasn’t aware Marge Simpson was that old.

  • http://twitter.com/kodermike Michael Cummings

    I believe we can satisfy both camps, folks, and without too much fuss.

    Time travel. Perhaps in the vein of Terra Nova (deceased Fox show), maybe just some kind of mass displacement of objects and communities through the time vortex/tunnel/gate.

    Who’s laughing now, eh? Not me. I’m preparing. First on my list: start carving Marge Simpson in this elephant tusk I found so that future past generations can appreciate it.

  • Tricksterson

    There’s no proven connection between therianthrops and Stan.  Cryptobigot.

  • Kirala

    That whale quote is going to continue to bug me until I know whether I caught an error. Because I’d think a dolphin or porpoise or orca born this moment would be the youngest toothed whale. The Science Now article which is the original source of the quote seems to be saying it was the youngest toothed baleen whale – youngest common ancestor of modern whales, or cousin equally close to both toothed and baleen whales – but then terms change for just that quote. So is it an error, or a perfectly appropriate shorthand? I WANT TO KNOW.

  • P J Evans

     I’d have used ‘earliest known’ rather than ‘youngest’. But that’s because I get fussy.

  • Carstonio

    I’m curious as to how anthropologists deduce that objects from that era have religious significance. For all we know, Venus figurines might have been humankind’s first NSFW content.

  • Leum

     That’s one of Cynthia Eller’s criticisms in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory. She argues that a lot of anthropologists/archaeologists are far too willing to find religious significance in what could just as easily have been porn.

  • Kirala

     No, it’s the latest known. It would be “oldest” if it were “earliest known.” (Although that was another thing I was checking in the original article – whether I had understood that word correctly. I had.)

  • Carstonio

    No, they looked like Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill.

  • Carstonio

    In the version of the myth that I read, those matriarchal religions were destroyed by brutal patriarchal invaders from the Asian steppes, a concept that sounds like Western ethnocentrism.

  • Leum

      Both ethnocentricism and Cold War era thinking. It also completely
    fails to account for how the steppe invaders became patriarchal.

  • stardreamer42

    DUH. *slaps forehead*

    Now I feel like an idiot.

  • Will Hennessy

     I think the need to create in us comes from God (if you believe that sort of thing, which I still do). Like the creation of the world. To me, natural selection and evolution and the long 4.5 billion-year history of our planet are just a testament to God’s creative genius, the beauty of His work, His willingness to take His time and get it right and make something worth being damn proud of. And hey, if it takes that many billion years? Fuck it. He’s God. He’s got the time.

    This young-earth creation bullshit? Just cheapens the experience, man. Turns God into a hack willing to just slap shit together. I doubt He likes that portrayal very much, you know, being the Artist He is and all…

  • Will Hennessy

     I think the need to create in us comes from God (if you believe that sort of thing, which I still do). Like the creation of the world. To me, natural selection and evolution and the long 4.5 billion-year history of our planet are just a testament to God’s creative genius, the beauty of His work, His willingness to take His time and get it right and make something worth being damn proud of. And hey, if it takes that many billion years? Fuck it. He’s God. He’s got the time.

    This young-earth creation bullshit? Just cheapens the experience, man. Turns God into a hack willing to just slap shit together. I doubt He likes that portrayal very much, you know, being the Artist He is and all…

  • Keulan

    I own a couple small fossils that are older than Ken Ham’s universe. One’s a mosasaur tooth, which is over 65 million years old. The other is a trilobite, which is over 400 million years old. Bought them at local rock and mineral shows for about ten bucks a few years ago. I like to look at them when I see creationists spouting their nonsense.

  • P J Evans

    I have a pendant with a piece of fossilized dinosaur bone (and also a piece of meteorite).

  • http://brgulker.wordpress.com/ brgulker

    Yeah, but carbon dating is to faulty!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    It isn’t “too” faulty. It has issues, yes, but these issues are well understood and can be factored into analysis, producing accurate results which have been independently verified by other dating methods. Radiometric dating isn’t just carbon, either.

  • http://brgulker.wordpress.com/ brgulker

    Should have used the sarcasm font, I guess.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Disqus would just eat it anyway. :p ALL SHALL BE FLAT. ALL SHALL BE MONOTONE. ALL IS AND FOREVER WILL BE DISQUS.

  • christopher_y

    Hyraxes? The KJV has ‘coney’, which means rabbit.

    Interesting question – do you think Launcelot Andrews and his merry men went with “coneys” because they hadn’t a clue what the Hebrew word meant and were trying to guess from context; or that they had heard of Hyraxes but thought, rightly, that the average English reader in the sixteen-noughties wouldn’t have, so they used a vaguely similar animal which would be familiar?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    This is probably true of several animals, including references to unicorns and dragons. A particularly egregious example of the translators trying to go by context is the description of Aaron’s priestly breastplate in Exodus — no two translations agree on all the stones, and several of the stones they suggested are contested as being too foreign to the region for the Hebrews to have known, much less had in such supply.

  • christopher_y

    I read something once that suggested that KJV unicorns were really oryxes. Yes, I know oryxes have two rather beautiful horns, and I can’t remember how the argument went, but it seemed moderately convincing at the time.

  • rmwilliamsjr

    this entry made k.ham’s facebook page today.

    NEW BLOG POST: Trust Me?

    his complaint?


    The blogger, however, doesn’t even attempt to present the various (fallible) dating methods used to support each item . . .”

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/03/15/trust-me/

    of course, like all AiG’s stuff, no comments are allowed

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    If it were all flat, we wouldn’t be so upset.

  • ashley haworth-roberts
  • GodCanDoAnything

    Where’s the proof? You’re just saying how old they are without proving they’re actually that old. WHERE’S THE BEEF?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam
  • P J Evans

    IIRC, if you see them from the side, it’s supposed to look like they only have one. (How you’re supposed to not notice that it’s two, on a live animal, is never explained.)

  • P J Evans

    We could provide one, but this post doesn’t have enough room, and anyway: *science books*. Check your local library. You’re wanting ‘carbon-14 dating’, ‘radio-isotope dating’, ‘archaeology’, and, I think, ‘anthropology’. Also try good histories of art.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Clearly God was working on how to design women when He made that image out of the tusk . . .

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Are you sure you’re not confusing them with Hydrox?

    I prefer Oreos, myself.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Maybe it’s Frank Beard.

  • Benjamin Thomas

    The seventh is the most telling. It shows how science works as contrasted with antiscience. Scientists used to think one thing, but then more evidence came along that suggested they were wrong, so they CHANGED THEIR POINT OF VIEW. That’s what we do, as scientists, or indeed as rational people, and that’s the main difference between us and Ken Ham. Not particularly WHAT we believe, but WHY we believe it and HOW we develop our beliefs.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X