A Bronze Standard

quote:

---

And the fact is that even if the flood were a thousand years earlier it would still fall within the Bronze Age and so your dating is still irrelevant.

---

Egyptian and Levantine historians date the start of the Bronze Age later than the 3300 date scientists will accept as latest.
Here is a link with a chart that has the archaeological dates with the "Min. accepted" column and then "Calibrated 14C" dates. Notice that the generally accepted date for the start of the Early Bronze Age is 3300 but the carbon dates have it at 4800-4100 BCE. It is actually taken as starting later by many Egyptologists.The Great Dating Problem, Part I - Improving the Egyptian Chronology | Ian Onvlee - Academia.edu

quote:

---

The Great Dating Problem, Part I - Improving the Egyptian Chronology

​

Early archaeologists were concerned that radiocarbon dates often seemed to too early in respect to the old belief system. But we now accept that radiocarbon dates are not too early. Instead, supposed
historical dates turn out to be too late.
....
Of these revisions, the most obvious difference is that the beginning of the Early Kingdom is now dated 300 years later than according to Breasted. However, regarding the Early and Old Kingdoms, new research and the radiocarbon dating method increasingly
show that Breasted’s dates w
ere actually closest to the truth. So we are basically back to square one but with new insights and many improvements.
....
This means we will have to accept that the Early Kingdom of Egypt began circa 3600 BC, not 3000 or 3100 BC. This corresponds with the archaeology of adjacent countries, like the Western Sahara, Nubia and Palestine

​

The Great Dating Problem, Part I - Improving the Egyptian Chronology | Ian Onvlee - Academia.edu

---

Then for part 2

quote:

---

Egyptologists are generally unbelievably uncritical in this matter, since they have not much else to go on than what their favourite authorities or the establishment tell them. That is because they need a consensus for communicational purposes. Therefore, most do as if it is already certain that the First Dynasty started between 3100 BC and 2900 BC, because that is what most authorities now say, and they even dare
call it established. The great public doesn’t know better, because the schemes of those authorities are promoted and defended a priori by a gang of loyal followers.
....
The problems become all the more awkward when the Predynastic is involved. Here the differences with archaeological, geological and climatological data climb up from half a thousand to a thousand years or more. These huge differences are of course unacceptable. The currently accepted predynastic dates are only an extension of the accepted dynastic chronology, simply calculated backwards by minimum estimations. On these shaky grounds then the Ancient World History is hung. Assyriologists and other historians have been forced to follow the same line of minimalistic dating schemes in order to remain synchronized. And the transition from archaeological designations like Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze, to what Egyptologists call Predynastic and Early Dynastic instead, poses yet another huge synchronization problem. This is simply because all predynastic and dynastic dates are artificially and deliberately kept unchanged, while the rest of the scientific world has already evolved to a better understanding of the pas

​

The Great Dating Problem, Part 2 - Radiocarbon Dates and Early Egypt | Ian Onvlee - Academia.edu

---

Jar is not correct about a flood 1000 years earlier being in the Bronze Age, if one is going to use Egyptian dates as his guide.It would be more like 3200 to 3000 BCE for the start of the Bronze Age according to them.Egyptian historians reject the current scientific dating methods, because they feel is is contrary to their astronomical calculations, and other historical records.The conflict actually gives YECs something to use to argue against the radiometric dating methods.(my last post for sure)

Are you really unable to figure out the answer to this, meaning you're so stubbornly glued to the OE system you can't think outside the box, or are you simply insisting on it even knowing the answer? The answer of course is that I don't believe they are older, I reject the dating systems you use. I don't accept anything that contradicts the Bible. What? If I don't agree that those rocks are that old then I'm not switching my position in the slightest, and it's you who are simply imposing your false dates on me. The "no evidence" in the soils YOU date to the time WE believe the Flood occurred, is based on YOUR preconception that I reject. You miss the real evidence for the Flood because you are glued to your own paradigm. You really should at least acknowledge the position of your opponents even if you don't agree with it, instead of dogmatically pronouncing yours correct. Well, there it is, your belief being treated as reality to disqualify mine. This is some kind of fallacy in a debate but I don't know what to call it. A form of begging the question perhaps. You pronounce those strata to be millions of years old without the slightest recognition that creationists have good reason to reject your dates. I AM sticking to the date range I gave because I do NOT recognize YOUR system of dating. What YOU think is millions of years old is simply NOT, it's only a few thousand years old. It doesn't matter if you personally believe this, in order to argue fairly you have to acknowledge it as a different view from yours. This is a case of ossified paradigm. There is nothing tortured about my view of these things, I simply, very simply, absolutely reject your dating system. I experience no cognitive strain whatever, perform no mental gymnastics, and I do not in any way change my view of when the Flood occurred. I have no reason to. Your billions of years are a fiction, it costs me nothing to laugh and ignore them. This is the worst case of paradigm cramp I've ever seen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Surely you must mean other than your own posts.

I am capable of recognizing the point of view of the opposition that I am disagreeing with; Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does. To him the strata just ARE ABSOLUTELY hundreds of millions of years old, and he can't seem to recognize even the possibility that I really do see them as only thousands of years old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That level of detail does not matter. Are there historians that exclude the period between around 2500 to 2000 BC from the Bronze age for the relevant area of the world in which Noah would have lived? If not, then what is your point? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am fully aware that creationists have a different view of the evidence than do scientists, and that you see those ancient layers as only a few thousand years old.But that view requires ignoring vast amounts of contradictory evidence, misrepresenting and misinterpreting the rest, and going on a massive scavenger hunt for anything that might possibly support your view--no matter how tenuous or contrary to the real-world evidence.Your posts claiming that every type of scientific dating is completely wrong (without any evidence that this is so), and your insistence that the bible has to be correct (in spite of evidence to the contrary) show this very clearly.In science and the real world, belief is not evidence!

Sometimes you do, yes. But I can cite plenty of occasions where you misstate the scientific point of view that you disagree with. Sometimes you do manage to get on the right track, but not always. In fact the view you have on some of the evidence he cites is pure dismissal without rationale. For example, you have no interpretation of radiometric dating other than to proclaim such dating wrong. Not a matter of interpretation at all.

You are missing the point. He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about. It also doesn't matter if you think I get the opponents' view wrong, just being aware that there IS a point of view opposed to me is more than Coyote seems to be aware of. Getting my point of view WRONG would be an improvement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We all understand that you do not believe conventional dating but you need to understand that unless you can present a strong enough case to convince the whole scientific community that the conventional dating is incorrect you have no argument.The problem is that not only would you have to overthrow ALL of the existing correlations involved in dating, all of physics and chemistry but also all of common sense. You need to explain how multiple lithification incidents can possibly happen within the time frame you propose.So that is your challenge; totally overthrow all of physics and chemistry as well as all common sense. Support your objection.

I'm sorry, you've changed the subject. I made a completely different point and I'm leaving it there for now.

Again, with respect to radiometric dating, you don't have any kind of interpretation. You simply say that dating is wrong. Coyote is certainly aware that you reject dating for non scientific reasons. His posts describe your belief accurately. So yes he is acknowledging your point of view.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.