Exodus is not supported by archaeology.

[sjastro]

Another problem with Exodus are the numbers which involved 600,000 men leading to a total population of around 2-2.5 million.
The estimated population of ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom period based on the amount of arable land available could not have been more than 2 million.
Estimating Population in Ancient Egypt – Brewminate: We're Never Far from Where We Were

 

[AV1611VET]

Only in your deluded imaginary world are such claims possible.
Given that Noah and his direct descendants were of Middle Eastern origin it was quite a nifty trick the Chinese came from a great grandson.

You came from one of Noah's sons as well.

I suppose Mongolians came from another of Noah's descendants as did the Koreans; and what about the Japanese?
@Estrid can put your claim to the test by undergoing a genealogical DNA test to determine if her origins are from the Middle East.

Estrid is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

 

[loveofourlord]

Another problem with Exodus are the numbers which involved 600,000 men leading to a total population of around 2-2.5 million.
The estimated population of ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom period based on the amount of arable land available could not have been more than 2 million.
Estimating Population in Ancient Egypt – Brewminate: We're Never Far from Where We Were

I pointed this out earlier similarly that the loss of around 3 million slaves and such even if egypt had a big enough population would be devestating.

 

[Astrid]

Only in your deluded imaginary world are such claims possible.
Given that Noah and his direct descendants were of Middle Eastern origin it was quite a nifty trick the Chinese came from a great grandson.
I suppose Mongolians came from another of Noah's descendants as did the Koreans; and what about the Japanese?
@Estrid can put your claim to the test by undergoing a genealogical DNA test to determine if her origins are from the Middle East.

" given that Noah and his ark never even existed"

As for test-
I wont die or give a drop of blood for a lie.

 

[sjastro]

You came from one of Noah's sons as well.Estrid is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

I've got as much chance of being a direct descendant of Genghis Khan instead of one of Noah's sons.

 

[sjastro]

" given that Noah and his ark never even existed"

As for test-
I wont die or give a drop of blood for a lie.

This is a serious loss for science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got as much chance of being a direct descendant of Genghis Khan instead of one of Noah's sons.

That's a doosey of a statement, seeing as the Mongols came from Ham.

But for the record, I know where you're coming from.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps there's a flaw in the way we understand geology and carbon dating?

Perhaps there is, but if you wish to have knowledgeable people pay attention to your thoughts then you want to avoid telegraphing evidence of a woeful absence of the techniques of geochronology. If I were asked to detail the dating methods that are important in geology then carbon dating would at, or close to the bottom. Carbon dating is limited to ages of less than about 50,000 years. In geological terms 50k years isn't yesterday, it's a couple of minutes ago.
The only people I know who consistently bring up carbon dating are those YECs who do not understand the sophistication of geochronology, but are parroting ill-informed YEC claims.
For your arguments to carry weight don't shoot yourself in the foot from the outset!

To forestall any assertion on your part that I am mocking you, I am not. I'm giving advice to help you avoid having your arguments discounted from the outset because your words suggest you lack competence in the subject.

How can we learn anything without evidence-based arguments in a Christ-like manner?

Tell that to AV1611VET, who asserts earlier in this thread that one does not need evidence.

It's nice to know a principle of the Bible is taught in Chinese culture.

It's nice to know that the cooperative nature of the social species homo sapiens, derived from evolutionary processes, has become embedded in culture.

 

[Rene Loup]

Perhaps there is, but if you wish to have knowledgeable people pay attention to your thoughts then you want to avoid telegraphing evidence of a woeful absence of the techniques of geochronology. If I were asked to detail the dating methods that are important in geology then carbon dating would at, or close to the bottom. Carbon dating is limited to ages of less than about 50,000 years. In geological terms 50k years isn't yesterday, it's a couple of minutes ago.
The only people I know who consistently bring up carbon dating are those YECs who do not understand the sophistication of geochronology, but are parroting ill-informed YEC claims.
For your arguments to carry weight don't shoot yourself in the foot from the outset!

To forestall any assertion on your part that I am mocking you, I am not. I'm giving advice to help you avoid having your arguments discounted from the outset because your words suggest you lack competence in the subject.

Then please give me an evidence-based counter-argument instead of attacking my character, like I have made efforts to do. A question has been asked, and now is your chance to answer it in a Christ-like manner on a Christian forum. Accusing me of incompetence isn't going to make your argument any stronger. Please and thank you.

Tell that to AV1611VET, who asserts earlier in this thread that one does not need evidence.

I'm choosing not to engage with him because of my own Biblically-based reasons. Disclosing them would possibly put me at risk of getting banned.

Do you agree with providing evidence? If not for AV1611VET and I, then for the viewers of this topic? Why?

Lead by example or be made an example of:

 

[Ophiolite]

Then please give me an evidence-based counter-argument instead of attacking my character, like I have made efforts to do. A question has been asked, and now is your chance to answer it in a Christ-like manner on a Christian forum. Accusing me of incompetence isn't going to make your argument any stronger. Please and thank you

I have not attacked your character. I am not attacking your competence. By the way, if I was attacking your competence that would not be an attack on your character. I am puzzled that you would see it that way. For the record I have had my expertise on particular matters attacked, commented on, challenged, etc. and I have never once felt that had to do with my character.

I have pointed out that your phrasing (mention of carbon dating) is often associated with individuals who are not knowledgeable about carbon dating, but either think they are, or claim to be. I am giving you advice to help you avoid creating such perceptions in future. Christ encouraged us to help others. If my advice is not of any help to you then you are free to ignore it. If you do I shall not regret the attempt to help.

Characterising my effort to help as an attack on your character reads very much like an attack on mine. I'll set that aside and assume you have just misinterpreted my intent.

Then please give me an evidence-based counter-argument

A counter argument to what? You asked a question: "Perhaps there's a flaw in the way we understand geology and carbon dating?" I've answered that question: I don't think there is a significant flaw. Since there is no argument from you, just the question, there can be no counter argument for me to offer. If you wish to specify, or exemplify possible flaws I shall be happy to address those.

Keep in mind my response to that question was primarily a matter of offering you advice, advice that you have misinterpreted and taken offence at. I took considerable care to make my intent as clear as possible. I apologise for being unsuccesful in that respect. I don't apologise for seeking to help you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Keep in mind my response to that question was primarily a matter of offering you advice, advice that you have misinterpreted and taken offence at. I took considerable care to make my intent as clear as possible. I apologise for being unsuccesful in that respect. I don't apologise for seeking to help you.

I've seen carbon dating explained like this:

Carbon dating is like finding a candle burning. You can tell how much longer it has to burn, but you can't tell how long it's been burning thus far.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've seen carbon dating explained like this:

Carbon dating is like finding a candle burning. You can tell how much longer it has to burn, but you can't tell how long it's been burning thus far.

I can understand why that flawed description might appeal to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can understand why that flawed description might appeal to you.

I made a carbon dating challenge thread.

Should be interesting.

 

[sjastro]

On the subject of carbon dating in archaeology, carbon dating can be compared to other dating techniques and found to be consistent.
For example the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus described in post #85 the author of the papyrus, the scribe Ahmes, provides a date for its compilation.

"Accurate reckoning. The entrance into the knowledge of all existing things and all obscure secrets. This book was copied in the year 33, in the fourth month of the inundation season, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, 'A-user-Re', endowed with life, in likeness to writings of old made in the time of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ne-ma'et-Re'. It is the scribe Ahmes who copies this writing."

'A-user-Re' is the Egyptian regnal name for the Hyksos king Apophis and was therefore compiled around 1550 BC assuming Apophis' reign is correct.
The radiocarbon date of the papyrus is approximately 1650 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

'A-user-Re' is the Egyptian regnal name for the Hyksos king Apophis and was therefore compiled around 1550 BC assuming Apophis' reign is correct.
The radiocarbon date of the papyrus is approximately 1650 BC.

If I wrote on the back of that papyrus, would they say A-user-Vet lived back then as well?

 

[sjastro]

If I wrote on the back of that papyrus, would they say A-user-Vet lived back then as well?

You are showing your ignorance again.
Not only is the papyrus dated but the ink as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are showing your ignorance again.
Not only is the papyrus dated but the ink as well.

And they just happen to coincide, don't they?

Did you see my canoe challenge thread that addresses this? or my bicycle challenge thread? (not the playing cards, but the bicycle)

 

[sjastro]

And they just happen to coincide, don't they?

Did you see my canoe challenge thread that addresses this? or my bicycle challenge thread? (not the playing cards, but the bicycle)

What a ridiculous argument.
The fraud conspiracy argument backfired, it's now all a coincidence which is nothing more than an attempt to justify your ignorance.
It's an amazing coincidence the papyrus and ink just happened to be dated to the time of a Hyksos king the papyrus is dedicated to.

 

[ruthiesea]

The various means of dating agree with each other within the margin of error. This includes dendrochronology, ice cores, known historical events, and the various methods of radiometric dating. If somebody has a way of scientifically invalidating radiometric dating please submit a paper with your methodology and findings to a peer reviewed scientific publication and then pack your bags for Sweden.

 

[AV1611VET]

The various means of dating agree with each other within the margin of error. This includes dendrochronology, ice cores, known historical events, and the various methods of radiometric dating. If somebody has a way of scientifically invalidating radiometric dating please submit a paper with your methodology and findings to a peer reviewed scientific publication and then pack your bags for Sweden.

QV please: