For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

If you look closely, you will see that the six markers are currently positioned so that the exodus occurs in the reign of Ramesses. However, Mahoney argues that these six events:

1. Arrival
   
2. Multiplication
   
3. Slavery
   
4. Judgment
   
5. Exodus
   
6. Conquest
   

can be sequentially found earlier which places the Exodus in the Middle Kingdom as opposed to the New Kingdom as is commonly held.

There is archaeological evidence which supports an early dating of each of these six markers, and this evidence places these events in the proper sequence as recorded in the Bible. So, in order to disprove Mahoney's theory, it seems to me that the skeptic has to either prove that Mahoney has misinterpreted (or fabricated) the archaeological data or show that other STRONGER evidence places the event in question later on the timeline. But I don't see skeptics wanting to argue for any of these events, period. To argue that they occurred later is to argue that they actually happened! Something skeptics are loathe to admit.

IOW, Mahoney is saying:  

1. There are six events that appear in the biblical account of the Exodus.
2. The record of these events tells us that they occurred in a specific sequence.
3. The occurrence of these events can be supported by archaeological evidence. 
4. This physical evidence reveals that the proper dating of these events should be in an earlier time period than the reign of Ramesses II.

All I seemed to hear from the skeptics in the film (and in this thread) is: "Oh, no...that's much too early for the Exodus. We know it had to occur much later."

But folks, if there is "NO EVIDENCE" for the Exodus (as is commonly claimed), then why do skeptics quibble over WHEN it didn't happen?