If mankind has been on earth over a million years, as the evolutionists tell us, then why do the records of their activity only go back a few thousand years. The evidence agrees with the Bible account, not with the evolutionists. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: How Far Back do the Records Go?: 1
Historical Records: Everything started off fully developed about 2000-3000 B.C.
Early Egyptian Records: Manetho's king lists should be revised downward to 3200 to 3600 B.C.
Radiocarbon Dates: Carbon-14 dates are not accurate prior to 1600 B.C.
Biblical Records: The oldest history book was Genesis, which Moses wrote about 1510-1450 B.C.
Astronomical Records: The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 1450 B.C. This fact is highly significant
Writing: The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
Civilizations: All the earliest ones were located in Mesopotamia, which is a little southeast of the Ararat mountains, where Noah's Ark came to rest
This material is excerpted from the book, AGE OF THE
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Age of the Earth.
Everything started off fully developed about 2000-3000 B.C. If mankind has been living and working on Planet Earth for millions of years, why do we find records of man dating back only to about 2000-3500 B.C.? And why is it that these records, when found, reveal the existence of highly developed civilizations?
As is shown more fully in our book, Ancient Man
, the writings, languages, and cultures of ancient mankind started off fully developed—but were not found to have begun until about 2000-3000 B.C.
Manetho's king lists should be revised downward to 3200 to 3600 B.C.
The earliest historical books are those of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. The historical dates assigned to the beginnings of Egyptian and Sumerian history are based primarily on king lists. The earliest records are the Egyptian king lists, dating from about the First Dynasty in Egypt, between 3200 and 3600 B.C. But internal and external evidence indicates that these dates should be lowered. An Egyptologist writes:
"We think that the First Dynasty [in Egypt] began not before 3400 B.C. and not much later than 3200 B.C. . . A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good; and that, at any rate, it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is later than 3400 B.C., rather than earlier."—*H.R. Hall, "Egypt: Archaeology," in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 edition, Vol. 8, p. 37.
The problem with First Dynasty dates is they are based on the king lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived many centuries later, in 250 B.C. Manetho's writings have only been preserved in a few inaccurate quotations in other ancient writings. Barton, of the University of Pennsylvania, points out the problem here:
"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.
For much more on this, open the web file, The Truth about Archaeological Dating.
Carbon-14 dates are generally accurate only back to about 1600 B.C.
"Frederick Johnson, co-worker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research, with radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by Carbon 14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971)? p. 85.
Apparently, there were marked atmospheric changes prior to that time which affected the rate of Carbon-14 production.
Because Egyptian dates are heavily relied on by cosmologists, chronologists, historians, and archeologists for their theories, Egyptian dating has become very important in dating the ancient world, and thus is quite influential. This is because it purports to provide us with the earliest historical dates. In the article on Archeological Dating, we will in detail explain all of this in much more detail. There is evidence available that would definitely lower archeological dates and bring them into line with Biblical chronology. Radiocarbon dating seriously decreases in reliability beyond about 1,500 years in the past.
The oldest history book was Genesis, which Moses wrote about 1510-1450 B.C.
The Bible is valid history and should not be discounted in any scientific effort to determine dates of earlier events. It has been consistently verified by authentic historical and archaeological research. (For an in-depth analysis of a primary cause of apparent disharmony between archaeological and Biblical dates, see Archeological Dating).
It is conservatively considered that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses c. 1510-1450 B.C. (The date of the Exodus would be about 1492 B.C.) Chronological data in the book of Genesis would indicate that Creation Week occurred about 4000 B.C., and that the date of the Flood was about 2348 B.C.
Some may see a problem with such a date for the Genesis Flood. But we are dealing with dates which are quite ancient. The Flood may have occurred at a somewhat earlier time, but it may also be that the earliest known secular dates should be lowered somewhat, which is probably the case here. It is well to remember that, in seeking to corroborate ancient dates, we can never have total certainty about the past from secular records, such as we find in Egypt and Sumer.
The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 2250 B.C. This fact is highly significant.
Throughout ancient historical writings, from time to time scholars come across comments about astronomical events, especially total or almost total solar eclipses. These are much more accurate time-dating factors! Because of the infrequency of solar eclipses at any given location, astronomers can date every eclipse going back thousands of years; and mention of a solar eclipse in an ancient tablet or manuscript is an important find. A solar eclipse is strong evidence for the dating of an event, when it can be properly corroborated by ancient records. Yet the earliest one was only a little over two thousand years before the time of Christ.
We can understand why the ancients would mention solar eclipses since, as such rare events, they involve the blotting out of the sun for a short time in the area of umbra—(the completely dark, inner part of the shadow cast on the earth when the moon covers the sun). Yet, prior to 2250 B.C., we have NOT ONE record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! This is an important item of evidence, establishing a young age for the earth.
"The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the *Book of History."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 520.
The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian, inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of Inanna.
The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai Peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.
The Sumerians were the first people with written records in the region of greater Babylonia. Their earliest dates present us with the same problems that we find with Egyptian dates. *Kramer, an expert in ancient Near Eastern civilizations, comments:
"The dates of Sumer's early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."—*S.N. Kramer, "The Sumerians," in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72.
All the earliest ones were located in Mesopotamia, which is a little southeast of the Ararat mountains, where Noah's Ark came to rest.
It is highly significant that there are no truly verified archaeological daties prior to 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating or from methods other than written human records.
In Genesis 8:4, we are told that, near the end of the Flood, the ark came to rest in the region of the Ararat mountains. This mountainous area is located in the far-eastern portion of modern Turkey, close to Iran and Iraq (which anciently was Persia and Babylonia). In Genesis 10, we find "the Table of Nations," a list of races and where they went after the Flood. William F. Allbright, considered the dean of American archaeologists, regarded this table as "an astonishingly accurate document." (See W.F. Allbright, "Discoveries in Bible Lands," in Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 30).
See more information on this in our book, Ancient Man, but let us here note that in the raising of crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, and building of towns and cities,—all of our earliest records, in every instance, go back to the Near East! The exception to this would be the notoriously inaccurate early Carbon-14 datings assigned to objects recovered from various parts of the world.
"The civilizations sprung into view suddenly . . This [the largest Egyptian pyramid] was the largest structure ever erected by man, and even today it is only exceeded by the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States. Yet only a century before the Great Pyramid was built, no stone building existed anywhere in the world.' Does this look like Evolution?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1967)? p. 131.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (How Far Back Do the Records Go?: Part 2 of 2)