Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

The three possible Pharaos are: Djoser (whom I have favoured so far), Senusret III (whom I have so far taken to be the pharao who died when Moses was very young), and what was the alternative by Damien Mackey again ... here we are:

Mentuhotpe [Mentuhotep] II ... came to the Theban throne under the name S'ankhibtawy ... his domain stretched from the First Cataract to the tenth nome of Upper Egypt; in other words, it was still curtailed to the north by the territory of the princes of Asyut. A hostile peace was maintained between the two kingdoms, but this was disrupted when the Thinite nome, suffering grievously from famine, revolted against the Herakleopolitan clan. Mentuhotpe captured Asyut and passed through the fifteenth nome without encountering resistance - this was effectively the fall of the Herakleapolitan dynasty.

Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty
Part One: Joseph ruled like Pharaoh in ancient Egypt
by Damien F. Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/125338500/Joseph_in_Egypt_s_Eleventh_Dynasty_Moses_in_Egypts_Twelfth_Dynasty

Table 3: Amarna and Thebes
Mentuhotep II, Dyn. 11, N° 9, Capital Thebes, Provenance Deir el-Bahri
Historical Median 2032, BR 2010 model 2059+/-2, calibrated 2004+/-20

Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and the Tell el Dab^Ca debate: a regional hypothesis
By Graham Hagens
https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572%200x00321daa.pdf

Let's calculate the time from Genesis 14 to Exodus with the three different pharaos, and I'll put each at the head of the calculation:

Djoser

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

87.541 pmC, dated as 2800 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

The path between Genesis 14 and c. death of Joseph's pharao is the same as in IV—V in Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt. What remains is the change between Joseph's pharao and Exodus.

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

87.541 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 87.824 pmC
100.655 pmC - 87.824 pmC = 12.831 pmC
12.831 + 2.272 = 15.103 pmC
15.103 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 6.647 times as fast

Mentuhotep II

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

95.75 pmC, so dated 2059 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
95.75 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 12.514 pmC
12.514 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 15.316 pmC
15.316 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 5.465 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

95.75 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 95.847 pmC
100.655 - 95.847 pmC = 4.808 pmC
4.808 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 7.081 pmC
7.081 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 3.116 times as fast

Senusret III

1935 BC

82.753 pmC, so dated 3500 BC

1700 BC

98.344 pmC, so dated 1838 BC

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

235 years, 0.97197, 0.02803

82.753 pmC * 0.97197 + 2.803 pmC = 83.236 pmC
98.344 pmC - 83.236 pmC = 15.108 pmC
15.108 pmC + 2.803 pmC = 17.91 pmC
17.91 pmC / 2.803 pmC = 6.39 times as fast

190 years, 0.977278, 0.02272

98.344 pmC * 0.977278 + 2.272 pmC = 98.382 pmC
100.655 - 98.382 pmC = 2.273 pmC
2.273 pmC + 2.272 pmC = 4.546 pmC
4.546 pmC / 2.272 pmC = 2 times as fast

Djoser in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

1838 BC

84.77 pmC, dated as 3204 BC

From my table IV—V, but for the following:

94 years, 0.98869, 1.131 pmC

Mentuhotep II in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

87.996 pmC, so dated 2898 BC

1.131 pmC * 5.465 = 6.179 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 6.179 pmC = 87.996 pmC
5730 * log(0.87996)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2898 BC

Senusret III in the Middle

1841 BC

Abraham died

89.043 pmC, so dated 2800 BC

1.131 pmC * 6.39 = 7.225 pmC
82.753 pmC * 0.98869 + 7.225 pmC = 89.043 pmC
5730 * log(0.89043)/log(0.5) + 1841 = 2800 BC

Both with Mentuhotep and Senusret in the middle, it is credible that the pharao he met could have died between Genesis 14 and his own death and be Hor Aha or even Narmer. With Senusret in the middle, Abraham would have had occasion to see Djoser, them dying about the same time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th?

What If Exodus was 18th Dynasty and not 13th? · Testing for Pharao of Exodus = Amenophis II, with Three Alternative's for Joseph's Pharao · Advice, perhaps? · There Was a Time When Young Earth Creationists Wanted This Kind of Stuff

RADIOCARBON, WINE JARS AND NEW KINGDOM CHRONOLOGY*
By David Aston
https://www.academia.edu/39997434/Radiocarbon_Wine_Jars_And_New_Kingdom_Chronology

I'll not give his full list of radiocarbon dates, but here are those of Amenophis II, also known as Amenhotep II.

Radiocarbon dates 2010
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1441 & 1431 BC		btw 1445 & 1423 BC
Radiocarbon dates 2013
King		68%		95%
Amenophis II		btw 1451 & 1434 BC		btw 1456 & 1419 BC

I'll make two radio carbon views on this one.

A) I use my calibration, where, as in David Down, Moses was Amenemhet IV, up to his fortieth year, his sister (formerly adoptive mother) the next pharao, and the pharao of the Exodus by consequence a little known pharao of the 13th dynasty. When in Biblical chronology does this land?
B) I'll use Amenophis II as pharao of Exodus, i) with Exodus in 1510 BC, as per Roman Martyrology, ij) with Exodus in 1446 BC, as per the idea of exactly (not at least but exactly) 480 years before 966 BC. I'll also check where this lands the carbon levels sinking from Exodus to Take of Jericho.

A) Amenophis II would have died in early 14th C. BC:

1398 BC

99.29 pmC, dated as 1457 BC

1374 BC

99.37 pmC, dated as 1426 BC

1510 - 1398 = 112 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

1510 - 1374 = 136 years after the Exodus, in the Judges period.

B i) Replacing eruption of Santorini with Death of Amenophis II:

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1470 BC

99.037 pmC so dated 1550 BC

First of all, the lowering of carbon 14 levels would not square with the radiocarbon dates for later 18th dynasty kings. But apart from that, what would the change imply?

100.655 * 99.517 % = 100.169 pmC

B ij) and also replacing the Biblical years of the Roman martyrology.

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1406 BC

98.273 pmC so dated as 1550 BC

99.879 * 99.517 % = 99.397 pmC

B, in both cases, even with no added carbon 14 into the atmosphere, the simple decay of atmospheric carbon during 40 years will bring the carbon 14 level one pmC unit above the one needed for dating Jericho to 1550 BC ...

However, 1550 BC was Kenyon's dating by other methods, it would seem. Recently there have been carbon dates, sometimes reported as totally confirming Kenyon. Here is another view of them:

Carbon-14 Dates at Jericho and the Destruction Date
/ Uncategorized / By Archae27
https://apxaioc.com/?p=10

However, it was discovered years later that the result of this sample testing was incorrect, and was later reissued on a list of erroneous dates due to a problem with equipment calibration at the laboratory for the years 1980-1984. The dates were corrected to 3300 +/- 110 BP, (Bowman, G.E., Ambers, J., Leese, M.N. “Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984.” Radiocarbon 32, 1990, 74, BM-1790) which calibrates to approximately 1883-1324 BC, rendering the resulting C-14 date useless for settling the debate between a destruction in ca. 1550 BC or ca. 1400 BC (Using http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/calib.html).

Previous to that, a sample from Jericho had dated to 1400 BC +/- 40 ... suspicious how big the gap between earliest and latest date suddenly became ...

So, maybe the 1550 BC date for Jericho is not just not a carbon date, but totally a red herring.

Let's ignore Jericho, and do both versions again, but taking them to Troy instead.

B i)

1510 BC

100.655 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

331 years, 96.075 %, 3.925 pmC normal buildup
100.655 * 96.075 / 100 + 3.925 = 100.629 pmC, so, the buildup would have been slower.
3.925-0.629 = 3.296, 3.296 / 3.925 = 83.975 % of normal buildup speed.

B ij)

1446 BC

99.879 pmC so dated as 1457 BC

1179 BC

100 pmC so dated 1179 BC

267 years, 96.822 %, 3.178 pmC normal buildup
99.879 * 96.822 / 100 + 3.178 = 99.883 pmC
100-99.883 = 0.117, 3.178 + 0.117 = 3.295, 3.295 / 3.178 = 103.682 % of normal buildup speed.

Unlike for "Jericho carbon dated 1550 BC" this gives no problem.

Perhaps a tip for revision?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Oculi LD
23.III.2025

PS, this was inspired by:

Tombeau du pharaon de l'Exode : ce qui a été découvert et pourquoi vous ne le savez pas !
(Tomb of Exodus' Pharao : what has been discoverd and why you don't know it!*)
Expedition Bible | 22 mars 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJP4pVjnWpk

* In France, the title is shown in French, not sure how to turn that off. I tried to change the keyboard, and recharge the page, the title was still in French.

What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? · What Would 440 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise? Or 600 Before the Flood?

0.5^(440/5730) = 0.9481657393132604

0.9481657393132604 * = decay
0.0518342606867396 = normal replacement

A) with 3.611 times as fast production, like on this view the half as long period after the Flood?
B) with same production as now?
C) with ten times slower production than now (as generally pre-Flood)?

3398 BC

x -> pmC

A) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 3.611 * 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.180239 ... (minus value, impossible)

B) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.0518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.0518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = -0.0375 ... (minus value, impossible)

C) x * 0.9481657393132604 + 0.00518342606867396 = 0.016277
x * 0.9481657393132604 = 0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396
x = (0.016277 - 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.0117

How about taking the final 440 years as rising twice as fast as the medium?

D) x = (0.016277 - 2 * 0.00518342606867396) / 0.9481657393132604
x = 0.006233

C) 5730 * log(0.0117) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 40 169 BC
D) 5730 * log(0.006233) / log(0.5) + 3398 = 45 375 BC

What about 600 Before the Flood, when Noah was born?

3557 BC

x -> pmC

0.5^(600/5730) = 0.9299905477435162

0.9299905477435162 * = decay
0.0700094522564838 = normal replacement

0.0700094522564838 / 5 = 0.01400189045129676
0.0700094522564838 / 10 = 0.00700094522564838

A) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.01400189045129676 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676
x = (0.016277 - 0.01400189045129676) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.002446379

B) x * 0.9299905477435162 + 0.00700094522564838 = 0.016277
x * 0.9299905477435162 = 0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838
x = (0.016277 - 0.00700094522564838) / 0.9299905477435162
x = 0.0099743538

A) 5730 * log(0.002446379) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 53 266 BC
B) 5730 * log(0.0099743538) / log(0.5) + 3557 = 41 648 BC

Three possible tables. Both are on average 1/5 of the normal replacement. The latter part is, but the former part is 1/10 normal replacement. Both are on average 1/10 normal replacement. Hmm ... may have to think the compromise through, tomorrow ...

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

0.623 pmC, 45 375 BC

3557 BC

0.997 pmC, 41 648 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

.... Thinking — could this happen?*

I mean, if the pmC is 0.997 in 3557 BC, could it drop to 0.623 in 3398 BC? Not by decay. In 159 years, the decay is a multiplication by 0.98095. By carbon escaping from somthing which never had carbon 14? Perhaps. So, no, as that is not overlikely in the calm pre-Flood times, probably not. Actually the opposite combination would be more likely:

3557 BC

0.245 pmC, 53 266 BC

3398 BC

1.17 pmC, 40 169 BC

How fast would that have gone?

0.00245 * 0.98095 = 0.0024
0.0024 + 0.01905 = 0.02145 (2.145 pmC)

0.0024 + 0.01905/2 = 0.011925 (1.1925 pmC)

Less than half as fast as modern speed to reach 1.17 pmC. Now, that could happen.

Why am I just speculating, between incompatible scenarii? Because I have no anchor point prior to the Flood, that's why.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril
18.III.2025

Hierosolymis sancti Cyrilli Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, ab Arianis multas pro fidei causa perpessus injurias et ex Ecclesia sua saepe depulsus, tandem, sanctitatis gloria clarus, in pace quievit. Ipsius porro intemeratam fidem prima Constantinopolitana Synodus oecumenica, sancto Damaso Papae scribens, praeclaro testimonio commendavit.

* The middle one, obviously. The other two can.

Stone Age European Seafarers

LiveScience: 7,000-year-old canoes from Italy are the oldest ever found in the Mediterranean
News By Jennifer Nalewicki published March 20, 2024
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/oldest-canoes-ever-found-in-the-mediterranean-sea-unearthed-off-the-coast-of-italy

LiveScience: European hunter-gatherers boated to North Africa during Stone Age, ancient DNA suggests
News By Jess Thomson published St. Patrick's Day 2025
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/european-hunter-gatherers-boated-to-north-africa-during-stone-age-ancient-dna-suggests

This would be 5000 BC for the canoes, 6500 BC for the arrival in Tunisia. Or rather* ...

2396 BC

60.027 pmC, dated 6615 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

... the arrival in Tunisia is from around when Arphaxad died, or some ten years later, and the actual canoes is from when Eber died, or some ten years later ...

Can we refine it a bit?

(2396 + 2373) / 2 = 2384~2385 BC
(60.027 + 61.194) / 2 = 60.6105 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.606105) / log(0.5) + 2384.5 = 6524 BC

(2189 + 2166) / 2 = 2177~2178 BC
(70.415 + 71.553) / 2 = 70.984 pmC

Dates as
5730 * log(0.70984) / log(0.5) + 2177.5 = 5011 BC

So, the arrival in Tunisia would be by 2385 BC, the canoe in Italy from 2177 BC.

Enjoy, happy St. Patrick's Day!
/HGL

* Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, You Think Another Biblical Chronology is Right than Mine? Here is What You Can Do ... for Carbon Dates

In the Catholic Church, there are three different views on how old the Earth was when Jesus was born.

One council, I think II Counc. of Nicaea, 787, says 5500 years were past when Jesus was born.*

The Historia Scholastica and the Roman Martyrology give the dates I use in reverse. Starting with Jesus born 5199th year after Creation.

And, again, some prefer to go by the Vulgate, since Trent makes it the standard text of the Catholic Bible:

10 These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

11 And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. 14 Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg. 17 And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. 18 Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 19 And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

As we know from Genesis 9, Noah dies 350 after the Flood. Traditionally, one sees Babel as ending when Phaleg (or Peleg) is born. With a LXX without the Second Cainan (the Martyrology), or with a LXX with the Second Cainan (Nicaea II), no problem. With the Vulgate, or King James, both have Hebrew originals with Masoretic chronology in the relevant chapters of Genesis, this would mean Babel ending in 101 after the Flood. That could be problematic.

So, let's count a bit.

Flood 2 Years after Arphaxad born 37 Years after Sale born 67 Years after Heber born

101 Years after Phaleg born 131 Years after Reu born 340 Years after Phaleg dies 350 Years after Noah dies

You can place end of Babel anywhere you want between 101 and 340 after the Flood. Or maybe even 341, if you think Babel ended the anniversary of Phaleg's death, with the Gedenktag. I'm placing it between 350 (Noah's death) and 401 (Phaleg's birth), because I have a LXX chronology. And saying Babel ended when or before Phaleg was born is more traditional (let's say the breaking up took a period of seven year, well, Phaleg could have been born in the seventh of those years).

Now, you match your view of when the Flood was (2348 BC according to Ussher), and your view of when Babel was (Ussher says 2204 BC, so, when Phaleg was 43 or 42 years old) with the data in remains, whether fossil or archaeological or anthropological (I take Neanderthals as a pre-Flood population, so my go to for the Flood is last provenly living Neanderthal, i e last Neanderthal body or body part). And you take your archaeological match for Babel (I take Göbekli Tepe, Petrovich took Ziggurat of Eridu, CMI seems to have basically said the Ice Age Palaeolithic was after Babel).

Then you match the real year, according to the Bible, or what you think that real year was, and carbon year, according to your matching material evidence, and you subtract the BC dates of the real year from the BC dates in carbon years, you get the carbon year excess, and from there you calculate the carbon 14 level. Same formula for how old sth is now with remaining carbon 14 in a sample works equally well for how old sth would have seemed in carbon dates, so, for instance, if an item is 500 years old, you calculate how much carbon it should have left (prior to more minute calibrations, like from tree rings or historic data), and the formula is ...

0.5^(500/5730) = 0.9413087854383377 = 94.131 pmC

As 1950 is 75 years ago, the carbon date BP wouldn't be 500, but 425. However, the raw carbon age for 420 BP seems to correspond to 1460 rather than to 1525, according to the fine calibration.**

Meanwhile, I am using Biblical data to calibrate carbon. So would you be. And the gap for carbon age of the Flood and actual Biblical age of it would exceed 10 000 years (34 000 years in my calibration).

0.5^{(10 000/5730)} = 0.2982924364237143 = 29.829 pmC

I don't place that value at the Flood, in fact I place it at between 2673 BC and 2660 BC, when Heber was up to 29 years old. You'd place it elsewhere, and you wouldn't start with it.

And when you then have what I call anchor points, any two of them can connect by interpolation (an anchor point involves Biblical / real date, Carbon date as per well identified item, pmC level derived from the discrepancy) and the way you do it is you decide intermediate carbon levels for the intermediate time divisions.

And from any intermediate point, you calculate the carbon date for the Biblical date from the pmC value. Like I did. The formula is, and I'll reverse the one for 500 years, like this.

5730 * log (0.9413087854383377) / log(0.5) = 500.0000000000001136432
5730 * log (0.2982924364237143) / log(0.5) = 9999.9999999999996080125

Now, to get the calibrated BC date, obviously as said all this time a Biblical calibration rather than a tree ring one, you add the BC year to the correct value of extra years derived from the pmC value.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Reminiscere LD
16.III.2025

* It should be Nicaea II, since it says the Incarnation makes a difference for the licitness of religious imagery.

** page 41 in the pdf from High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC

Somestimes CMI Are Just Wrong, on Theology

Rainbows, the Flood, and the Covenant
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 38(4):44–45, October 2016
https://creation.com/rainbows-and-the-flood

Most of the article is correct on Creation Science and Exegetics that Rainbows existed before the Flood. See the Haydock comment on Genesis 9.

13 I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and between the earth.

Ver. 13. My rain bow. This had been from the beginning; but it was not before appointed for a sign that the earth should no more be destroyed by water. It is styled God’s bow, on account of its beauty and grandeur. (Menochius) (Ecclesiasticus xliii. 12.) — “As the rain-bow, which makes its appearance in the clouds, borrows all its effulgence from the sun, so those only who acknowledge the glory of Christ in God’s clouds, and do not seek their own glory, will escape destruction in the deluge,” St. Augustine, contra Faust. ii. 21.

The cited Giovanni Stefano Menochio SJ (9 December 1575 – 4 February 1655) was an Italian Jesuit biblical scholar. Perfectly orthodox, and so it is perfectly OK for a Catholic to say that there were rainbows before the Flood.

However, Jonathan Sarfati pretends that in Matthew 26:26 ff. Jesus left bread and wine as they were and only added a new signification. Given the multiplication of breads and the miracle in Cana, why would He do no more, like actually make it His body and His blood? Because the Deformers say so? No, let's stick with the Church, shall we, over the centuries!/HGL

I Wish My Readers Consulted CMI or AiG a Bit More

Some answers they would not need to bother me about, since they are already available on those other activist platforms, I don't even have an original twist to add.

Like, how did Cangaroos and Aborigines get to Oz from Mountains of Ararat after the Flood?

They have answered this passim and given both Carl Wieland and Ken Ham are Australians, no wonder. Like here: How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?

Now, I just happened to come across a map from the ice age. No, not made back then. Made now, but about conditions back then:

The context was Swedish Quora and someone else answering a near identic question about the arrival supposedly 55 000 years ago.

I shared with an appropriate comment on this also being a good answer for Young Earth Creationists.

utmärkt svar äfven för ungjordscreationister
https://sv.quora.com/profile/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1/utm%C3%A4rkt-svar-%C3%A4fven-f%C3%B6r-ungjordscreationister-https-sv-quora-com-Australien-%C3%A4r-ju-omgivet-av-vatten-i-alla-riktningar

Australien är ju omgivet av vatten i alla riktningar, hur kom dess första befolkning till den kontinenten, och hur visste de att den skulle finnas?

... Det hjälpte också dessa Australiens första äventyrare att havsnivån var avsevärt mycket lägre under perioden, tack vare att mycket vatten var bundet i inlandsis:

Translation:

An excellent answer for Yung Earth Creationists too:

Australia being surrounded by water in all directions, how did its first population arrive to the continent, how did they know it was there?

... It was also of assistance to the first pioneers of Australia that the sea levels were considerably lower during the period, thanks to much water being bound up in ice sheets:

This also helps to illustrate how SE Australia, specifically Tasmania, is the South East corner of the world. Where Are the Four Corners on a Globe? It was not so long ago (like less than 5000 years) that it was attached to SE Asia like Amager is attached to Zealand or the Danish Islands in general to Jutland (which juts out of North Germany).

If I should really add a personal touch, well, I give a Biblical date for the carbon date of Mungo Man (or Mungo Woman). First Tas Walker:

The dating game
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 26(1):36–39, December 2003
https://creation.com/the-dating-game

Quote:

The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years.3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia.

So, 17,000 BC, 22,700 BC. Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

2782 BC

9.201 pmC, dated as 22,505 BC

...

2712 BC

17.585 pmC, dated as 17,081 BC

Her soft tissue is 70 years older than her hard bone material, probably because she ate something like shellfish, or sth with old carbon pretty much before she died. The reservoir effect. Vikings have been dated to before the Viking invasion through eating pretty much fish, and in their case the reservoir effect was sth like two centuries, I recall.

So, she died 245 years after the Flood, and given life spans back then, at less than 300—400 years old, it was a premature death. This is why in the anatomy of the skeleta, they do not look like old people from today, at less than 200 years old, probably, she would have been anatomically comparable to a woman in her thirties or forties.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quadragesima L. D.
9.III.2025