tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post641234524569753690..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: What Happened When? Ancient Near East ChronologyJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-33732373173875578592012-02-12T17:43:08.257+00:002012-02-12T17:43:08.257+00:00Notes for prior post:
1) Kicking the Sacred Cow by...Notes for prior post:<br />1) Kicking the Sacred Cow by James Hogan (Baen, New York, NY, 2004), p. 47.<br />2) Ibid., p. 175, Note: Hogan is endorsing Velikovsky’s opinion.<br />3) Ibid., p. 174.<br />4) Ibid., p. 206.<br />5) The Earth and Its Mountains by R. A. Lyttleton, (John Wiley & Sons, 1982, Chichester, UK), p. xv.<br />6) Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton, (Park Street Press, 1997, Rochester, VT), p. 33.<br />7) Western Civilization (Comb. ed.) by Margaret King (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000), p. 10.<br />8) Synchronized chronology: rethinking Middle East antiquity by Roger Henry (Algora Pub., 2003), p. 10.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03376404944197708965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-42928277641804533752012-02-12T17:40:00.177+00:002012-02-12T17:40:00.177+00:00Former aeronautical engineer and award winning Sci...Former aeronautical engineer and award winning SciFi author, James Hogan said, “A comparatively young word – in the sense of the surface we observe today – is compatible with unguided Catastrophist theories…” [1] Hogan states that conventional dating, “was more a product of materialism’s fight with religion than an empirical construct … [it was] manufactured to provide the long time scales that Lyell and Darwin needed.” [2] Hogan maintains that, “Mountain uplifts and other formations show indications of being younger than conventional geology maintains.” [3] One example that Hogan presents that challenges standard dating uses thermoluminescence of lunar material which was dated at less than 10,000 years. [4]<br /><br />R. A. Lyttleton (F.R.S., astronomer), said that due to tidal friction, “… the Moon would have been almost in contact with the Earth only about 1,000,000,000 years ago…” – far less than the accepted 4.5 billion years. [5] Richard Milton, science journalist and Mensan, is sympathetic to Young Earth Science (YES). Carbon-14 has not reached the equilibrium point and Milton reports that Melvin Cook dated the atmosphere at 10,000 years old based on this fact. [6] <br /><br />According to Claudia Stolle of Denmark’s National Space Institute,<br />“At the moment, the Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing by approximately 5 % per century, and scientists are unable to explain the reason for this or describe the consequences this will have” (http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Earths_physics_and_geodesy/Magnetic_field.aspx). Could this support YES?<br /><br />Scientists in Sweden have discovered that remains of type I collagen, a structural protein, are retained in a mosasaur fossil. Using synchrotron radiation-based infrared microspectroscopy they showed that amino acid containing matter remains in fibrous tissues obtained from a mosasaur bone (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-endogenous-proteins-million-year-old-giant-marine.html). Could these delicate structures really be millions of years old?<br /><br />Stephen Jay Gould did not consider Ussher’s (4004 BC) work as extreme:<br /><br />Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology… <br /><br />The Standard Dictionary of Facts, published in 1908 and edited by Henry Ruoff, included Ussher’s date for the Creation of the World (p. 54) as historically valid.<br /><br />Chinese history begins around 2200 BC. [7] The Mayans placed the beginning at 3114 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar). British Egyptologist David Rohl has proposed a shortened Egyptian chronology (http://www.amazon.com/Pharaohs-Kings-David-Rohl/dp/0609801309) Roger Henry has proposed a similar view:<br /><br />The actual mechanism for resolving the chronological problems is to recognize that two dynasties (the 19th and 20th) are duplicated - they are listed twice by Manetho, first with Egyptian names and then with Greek names. And a third dynasty, the 21st, is actually concurrent with the Persian Era. [8] <br /><br />The Sumerian King List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List) can be compressed to 6,660 years by translating from sexagesimal (base 60) to decimal (base 10). The fact that we get even multiples of sixty and 3600 (sixty squared) verifies this theory.<br /><br />What evidence would be required to confirm Young Earth Science?<br /><br />Kindly,<br />Ned the Origins Activist (NOA)Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03376404944197708965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-48541029969033669342011-04-25T01:00:29.939+01:002011-04-25T01:00:29.939+01:00Perhaps the solution is simply to accept that we c...Perhaps the solution is simply to accept that we can't form a link between the various dating systems and move on.<br /><br />The Bible has a chronology that places the Exodus about 1450-1400BC. Who was the Egyptian Pharoah then? Don't know, don't care.<br /><br />Likewise with trying to link the other histories together. Much easier to just date them relative to themselves and forget about trying to make them interact.<br /><br />After all, history isn't a science.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-70199343975569531782011-04-06T18:29:07.373+01:002011-04-06T18:29:07.373+01:00I read Rohl's A Test of Time - his later works...I read Rohl's A Test of Time - his later works seemed moonbattish to me, but the thesis in ATOT seemed very plausible. If, and it's a big if, Rameses 11 is the same as Sisak, rather than Shoshenq, then Bible chronology around the start of the United Kingdom seems a lot more robust.<br /><br />The thing is, ancient chronologies depend on just a few, very few, synchronicities and Rohl has at least a plausible story to tell. Shame about his later works.tolkeinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08322788161398430426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-1541798682367719772011-04-05T21:53:17.253+01:002011-04-05T21:53:17.253+01:00Hi Joel,
Hmm. I think that you question requires...Hi Joel,<br /><br />Hmm. I think that you question requires a further blog post. I'll try to write something up when I have a spare moment.<br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />JamesJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-52693704243154726532011-04-05T02:54:29.506+01:002011-04-05T02:54:29.506+01:00Do you think this is part of why there is such a w...Do you think this is part of why there is such a wide range of opinions on the Old Testament's historicity?Joelnoreply@blogger.com