Ancient Egypt and a young Earth

[QED]

Up until last night, watching a BBC dramatization of the translation of the Rosetta Stone (a proclamation by Pharaoh Ptolemy V written in three different texts), I hadn't appreciated that Champollion (the Frenchman credited with being the first to understand the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs) was on a mission to find out about the age of the world.

Thanks to his work subsequent translations of the copious written material found in tombs has provided us with a comprehensive list of individuals dating to and around the same era as Noah's Flood -- supposed to have happened in 2370 BCE. From the archeology this would have been during the fifth dynasty, more specifically during the reign of a King called Djedkare who was living from around 2450-2300 BCE

So how can it have been business as usual in Egypt while the rest of the world was supposed to have been submerged? In the 1820's the Roman Catholic Church was breathing down Champollion's neck nervous of what he might uncover. It seems that Champollion took some of his own discoveries to his grave for fear of the heresy it represented.

But the facts and figures have been readily available ever since so I'd like to see a convincing explanation for this mismatch between the information acquired from the Archeology in Egypt and the supposed dating of the Noahic Flood from the YEC perspective. Searching these Forums for king "Djedkare" came up with nothing so perhaps this hasn't been debated before. I know there are a few YEC's active here so I hope we can have a good debate about it now.

[McCulloch]

Most scientists who study creation find no need for any years beyond 10k since outside of the Bible there is no recorded human evidence of anything on earth prior to 8 tya.

What is a creation scientist? Please list some of those scientists who have studied creation with respect to their scientific expertise and have published their findings about creation in peer-reviewed journals. Please note that a scientist would not limit the age of the earth based on written testimony. To do so would be contrary to the principals of science.

[jcrawford]

Most scientists who study creation find no need for any years beyond 10k since outside of the Bible there is no recorded human evidence of anything on earth prior to 8 tya.

There are human remains older than 8kya here in the Americas. This statement simply isn't true.

It remains true until you prove it untrue.

Biblical genealogies listing ages upwards over 500 yrs, even 200 yrs, goes against what we know about human development.

What you know about human development goes against biblical genealogies.

Not to mention that our life expectancy has only increased as a species over the last 2000 yrs. as our physical quality of life has gotten better.

I don't expect your life expectancy to exceed that of 150 years. Neanderthal Noah lived 950 years. You'll be missing a few.

[jcrawford]

Please list some of those scientists who have studied creation with respect to their scientific expertise and have published their findings about creation in peer-reviewed journals. Please note that a scientist would not limit the age of the earth based on written testimony. To do so would be contrary to the principals of science.

Obviously your are framing your request in terms of your secular and atheistic definition of "the principles of science," a limitation creation scientists obviously reject.

Who are you to define science and to say what it's principles are?

btw: What are your principles and definitions of science, anyway?

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

Obviously your are framing your request in terms of your secular and atheistic definition of "the principles of science," a limitation creation scientists obviously reject.

Obviously he was framing his request in terms of the scientific method, a requirement creationist pseudoscientists cannot meet.

Who are you to define science and to say what it's principles are?

Scientists, of course. Just like doctors set medical standards, lawyers set legal stardards and Congressmen st ethical standards(but never meet them). We Scientists have to meet the standards of the scientific method, it helps seperate the loons from the real science, why should you get a pass?

btw: What are your principles and definitions of science, anyway?

It remains true until you prove it untrue.

That isn't it. It isn't true until you provide supporting evidence of it's veracity.

What you know about human development goes against biblical genealogies.

It may go against your INTERPRETATION of Biblical scripture. That means your interpretation is in error. What we know of human developement also goes against everything you've ever posted, too. Once again error, your's.

Neanderthal Noah

????????????

Most scientists who study creation find no need for any years beyond 10k since outside of the Bible there is no recorded human evidence of anything on earth prior to 8 tya.

Evidently they find no use for their brains,either. Cave Paintings(Neanderthal and Sapiens), Egyptians, Sumerians all have examples over 10,000 years old. This idea is just idiotic.

That's enough for one night, I can only deal with...lack of knowledge for so long before I loose my patience with...people who refuse to use their brains.

Grumpy 8)

[QED]

So let me see if I've got this right then: In jcrawfords "world" the planet Earth was created and made habitable overnight sometime in the last ten thousand years. Right from the start everything was peaceful and green (not sulphurous volcanic and gently cooling under a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere) and (Neanderthal) man's lifespan was 900 years or so. At the same time T-Rex, velociraptors and every other terrifying animal who's teeth and skeletal remains have been dug from the ground, were kept apart from man. This of course means that every example of living thing that we've ever found (and mistakenly sorted into eras like Cambrian, Permian etc.) was coexisting with every other right off the bat.

So all the different types of animals that ever existed were all living side by side right up until the point when the receding flood waters somehow sorted them into layered groups bearing the remains of only similar types.

And this is what is called "Creation Science"?

Anyway, my question about the supposed timing of the flood coinciding with the fifth Egyptian dynasty has been answered by simply ignoring the biblical chronology. I'll leave it to the The BBC's description of the events leading to this embarrassing discovery:

The Church hears of Champollion's desire to travel to Egypt and they offer to support him on the condition that he never reveals any findings that contradict the teachings of the Church.

As a deeply religious and now desperate man, Champollion agrees. He assembles a combined Tuscan-French team and travels the length of Egypt, stopping in as many tombs and temples as he can.

They wonder at The Great Pyramids at Giza and then visit the the oldest pyramid in the world at Saqqara. Here, Champollion discovers a tomb covered in ancient hieroglyphs. It gives him an amazing insight into the lives of the Ancient Egyptians, including their calendar.

It also tells him something incredible about the age of the world. The tomb belongs to a man called Menofre who was Royal hairdresser to a King called Djedkare – a King who lived during the fifth dynasty, one that predated Noah's Flood and, according to the Church and the Bible, could not have existed.

Champollion is awestruck by this knowledge and, several decades before Darwin, this was a discovery that threw into doubt the very date of creation. But unlike Darwin, Champollion has to keep it to himself and it is a revelation that must go with him to his grave.

[McCulloch]

Please list some of those scientists who have studied creation with respect to their scientific expertise and have published their findings about creation in peer-reviewed journals.

Please answer this question.

Please note that a scientist would not limit the age of the earth based on written testimony. To do so would be contrary to the principals of science.

Can we agree that science is, by its very nature, skeptical? No competent scientist would state that the earth cannot be older than 10 000 years old simply based on the evidence that there are no human documents that old. A scientist would have to have a bit more conclusive evidence than that to base an opinion on. Agreed?

Obviously your are framing your request in terms of your secular and atheistic definition of "the principles of science," a limitation creation scientists obviously reject.
Who are you to define science and to say what it's principles are?
btw: What are your principles and definitions of science, anyway?

Prove that there is such a person as a Creation Scientist and list a few examples of them here and then we may have some basis for discussion. And please, not scientists who happen to believe in creation. Scientists who have published research in their field of expertise validating the creationists model.

[micatala]

Obviously your are framing your request in terms of your secular and atheistic definition of "the principles of science," a limitation creation scientists obviously reject.

I am confused as to whether this is serious comment, is intended as satire, or is merely intended to denigrate and insult scientists.

The principles of science are the same for all scientists, be they secularists, theists, Christians, Muslims, atheists, or followers of the Great Pumpkin. While the principles have developed some over the centuries, they are not all that different than the principles followed by Newton (a Christian), Einstein (a Jew), Maxwell (a Scotsman and I think a Christian), etc. etc.

[jcrawford]

We Scientists have to meet the standards of the scientific method, it helps seperate the loons from the real science, why should you get a pass?

Your "scientific method" means nothing. It's the results that count, even if they are obtained by 'chance.'

btw: What are your principles and definitions of science, anyway?

It isn't true until you provide supporting evidence of it's veracity.

That's what I tell neo-Darwinists.

What we know of human developement also goes against everything you've ever posted, too.

Doesn't seem that you know much about human development then.

Cave Paintings(Neanderthal and Sapiens), Egyptians, Sumerians all have examples over 10,000 years old.

Some things are assumed or inferred to be dated over 10 tya. There's no way to empirically verify such dates.

[McCulloch]

In another thread,

Does it not bother you that the bible has shown great errors in chronology in another area (i.e. placing the flood in the middle of the Egyptian fifth dynasty).

and

The error is committed by those who would place the Egyptian fifth dynasty before or during the the Flood.
More likely the archaeological testimony is unreliable.

In accordance with Rule 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence. I anticipate the evidence that jcrawford has to the effect that the archaeologists' research data are unreliable.

[jcrawford]

Please list some of those scientists who have studied creation with respect to their scientific expertise and have published their findings about creation in peer-reviewed journals. Please answer this question.

As you know, creation science is not accepted by evolutionist or secular science so creation scientists are forced publish their scientific findings in their own "peer-reviewed" scientific journals. As you also know, one can learn more about the work of these scientists, plus their names, on websites like AIG or ICR.

Please note that a scientist would not limit the age of the earth based on written testimony. To do so would be contrary to the principals of science.

I assume you are referring to "principles" of secular science here.

Can we agree that science is, by its very nature, skeptical?

If skepticism is a necessary prerequisite for adhering to the principles of science, creationists like me may be over qualified.

No competent scientist would state that the earth cannot be older than 10 000 years old simply based on the evidence that there are no human documents that old.

Why not? Is that one of your scientific "principles?"

A scientist would have to have a bit more conclusive evidence than that to base an opinion on. Agreed?

Not at all. A secular or atheistic scientist, maybe, but not one who believes that the Bible is conclusive evidence of God's existence and the Great Flood.

Prove that there is such a person as a Creation Scientist and list a few examples of them here and then we may have some basis for discussion.

You seem to like dictating the terms of our discussion and debate. You don't respond to my inquiries about your beliefs yet demand proof of my contentions. This isn't the place to conduct a scientific inquisition, is it?

And please, not scientists who happen to believe in creation. Scientists who have published research in their field of expertise validating the creationists model.

Visit AIG or ICR's website. ICR has just concluded it's 5 year study of radioisotopic decay and it's peer-reviewed findings seem to indicate that the world is only thousands of years old, not millions or billions.