Crusader37

Kenneth R. Miller's "Random and Undirected" Testimony: An Update

Archaeological Dating  

Egyptian and other dates correlate archaeological finds with the Bible

 the First Dynasty does not extend very far back in history, and therefore supports the conservatively accepted date for the Flood.

The importance of archaeology. The attempt to wed Darwinism to archaeological dating. Actually, the experts keep lowering the date of the Egyptian First Dynasty. Why the Bible is an important ancient historical record. Manetho’s Egyptian king-list and problems with it. *Velikovsky and Courville’s studies. Events after the Flood  The radiocarbon dating cover-up. *Velikovsky’s letters and responses. More problems with radiodating. The accuracy of eclipse dating. The problem with Egyptian partial eclipse dating. The theorized "Sothic Cycle." The "astronomically fixed" Egyptian date fraud. The "rising of Sothis" and serious flaws in the theories. Plus an appendix study on "Near Eastern Mounds."

Here are some quotations from that chapter:

"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"—Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology."—George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 11.

"In composing his history of Egypt and putting together a register of its dynasties, Manetho was guided by the desire to prove to the Greeks, the masters of his land, that the Egyptian people and culture were much older than theirs and also older than the Babylonian nation and civilization."—*I. Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea (1977), p. 207.

"As prehistory is made continuous with [preceding that of] recorded history, a problem of ancient chronology exerts a crippling effect on both the study of the Old Testament and on ancient history in general. Evidence is accumulating rapidly that Egyptian chronology is off by as much as 500-600 years. Since most scholars calibrate Old Testament events and the history of other ancient cultures by Egyptian dates, the effect is devastating, crippling, and stifling."—Erech von Fange, "Time Upside Down" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 26.

"Mutual friends secured for me a most favorable introduction to Dr. Froelich Rainey, Director of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Rainey is a vigorous, enthusiastic, obviously very well-informed, courteous gentleman in his late middle years. At no time was your name brought up by me or by anyone else at the University. I told Dr. Rainey that I was interested in the latest findings that have bearing on the date of the Exodus. My position as a professor of religion in Ursinus College and a long-time interest in the matter had prompted my quest for information in this area . .

" ‘The dating of Egyptian history,’ said Dr. Rainey, ‘is one of the most controversial matters in the whole realm of archaeology today. On the basis of radiocarbon dating we have come up with a very serious difference of 600 years between the old chronology and the radiocarbon evidence! We do not know how to account for it. It seems to extend throughout Egyptian history, but the earlier dates are off more than more recent ones . . Right now our Museum, the British Museum, and the University of Leiden are working furiously to try to find out the cause of the discrepancy’ . .

" ‘Is it your opinion then,’ I asked Dr. Rainey, ‘that we may expect some very drastic changes in the dates of early Egyptian history in the next few years?’ He replied, ‘Yes. And not only in Egypt but in the dating of the entire Ancient World, especially the Near East.’

"Dr. Rainey then called Miss Elizabeth K. Ralph who is in charge of the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. This laboratory is located in marvelous quarters in the basement of the new Physics Building. A special guide took me to Miss Ralph.

"Miss Ralph is a deeply serious, dedicated scientist, whose whole life is bound up with her work. She received me most kindly, was in no wise hurried in answering my inquiries, and most willingly answered all my questions and gave me access to all the information she had!

"In addition to confirming everything that Dr. Rainey told me, she furnished me a wealth of other information . . Miss Ralph was insistent on the wide gap between the so-called archaeological dates of Egyptian history and those derived from radiocarbon dated materials. In almost every case the radiocarbon dates are significantly younger. Today, they feel they can date to within an accuracy of 25 years in some instances. I found her working on a huge graph on which she had entered every reported item of radiocarbon Egyptian evidence, plotted against the archaeologically determined dates for the same material. This graph shows a very unmistakable trend throughout Egyptian history in the interest of younger dates. She is trying to ascertain what the cause may be."—David Baker letter, dated 1963, to I. Velikovsky, in "Letters," Ash Pensee 4(1):14 (1973) [emphasis ours].

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it."—Professor Brew, quoted by J.O.D. Johnston, "Problems of Radiocarbon Dating," in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105, p. 13 (1973).

"This [radiodating verification by actual historical dates] is not true of geological and archaeological measurements, except in relatively rare instances. Measurements of time in these fields are inferred from processes, the rates of change or progress of which are not consistent and which are, as yet, quite unpredictable. There is no known standard rate for any one of these processes, and measurements of time for one process are invariably relative to rates of progress in other processes." —Frederick Johnson, quoted in H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators."—*J. Gordon Ogden III, "Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dates," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288:187 (1977

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

The ichneumon wasp (Thalessa) looks so delicate that the slightest wind ought to blow it over. Yet it lands on a hard tree trunk, and begins thumping with something that looks as delicate and frail as the leg of a daddy longlegs. But that antennae, thinner than a human hair, happens to be a high-power extension drill. The drill is about 4½ inches [11.43 cm] long, so long that it curves up and down as the small insect thumps on the hardwood with it. After thumping for a time, the tiny creature somehow knows it has found the right place to start work. Drilling begins. This little wasp uses that delicate feeler to cut its way down through several inches of solid, hard oak wood! This is totally unexplainable. Scientists have tried to solve the puzzle, but without success. The second miracle is what the wasp is drilling for; the larvae of a special beetle. How can it possibly know where to start its drill, so as to go straight down (it always drills straight down)—and reach a beetle larvae? Scientists cannot figure this out either. Somehow the initial thumping told the tiny insect that a grub was several inches down, and that it was the kind of larvae it was looking for. The ichneumon wasp lays its eggs on just one larvae, that of the Tremex. When those eggs hatch, they will have food to grow on. Then, before they grow too large, tiny ichneumon wasps come out through that original hole.