For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

again you are describing a commentary dressed as a documentary.
An inconvenant truth is a great example of a commentary dressed as a documentry. where very little actual evidence is provided and it almost completely relys on expert testimony.
In contrast to say a true documentry on the american revolution that cites, dates times, historical records and news papers.

And yet Inconvenient Truth is able to fool a lot of viewers into thinking they're seeing and hearing vast quantities of "proof" for the documentary's conclusion. Particularly the stupid who are ignorant of the scientific method and lack critical-thinking skills. Understand?

I absolutly can, because the matter being discussed is based on opinion. We have absolutle no hard evidence that states egypt is a fixed age. why? because of three intermediate periods/egyptian darkages where history was lost.
All anyone can do is guess on how long these time spans lasted, based on guess of what was known to be going on in the world at the time.

It's guess work all of it. It would be one thing if the majority of egyptologists had a solid timeline from the old to new kingdom and 2000 years of solid history, but the oppsite is true. we at best can only guess at 1/2 of what is known because we have little more than tatters and rags to tell us what is going on in what some estimate could be 1000 years of historical silence.

That's just not true at all. They can use radiocarbon dating, Palaeolithic dating, and a range of other academic study to determine an ancient culture's age (such as its progression along the bronze age for example). You are clearly ignorant of this. It's not a "guessing game".

Yeah, that's call sarcasm. I can honestly say I see absolutely no wisdom in how the academic structureof main stream Egyptology works.

That's because you're struggling to understand something that's simply beyond your comprehension. You seem to have no clue as to how academic standards of evidence work.

Are you actually stupid, or is it an act? Post middle Kingdom means after the middle kingdom has fallen. The events of the exodus (The death of Pharaoh's son, the destruction of the Army and the loss of Egypt's wealth spun them into a dark age. a depression it took over 100 years for them to recover from.)
Their were no cities occupied by a central egyptian goverment because their was no centralized goverment any more (40 after the loss/exodus)

Well Drich there were in fact Egyptian strongholds that existed in Egypt up until the mid 12th century, which prove that Egypt was still powerful up to that time. This has been confirmed by several archaeological digs in Canaan that located the cities. As I mentioned before, most cities in the region were not strongholds. From the ~15th century to the mid 12th century Egypt controlled most of Canaan, from a network of heavily fortified cities in Canaan that they occupied and used to hold sway over the whole region.

May I assume from your pointed questions above that you have, in fact, watched the documentary?

If so, with what, specifically, would you take issue from the filmmaker's arguments?

Minimalist mentioned the Ipuwer Papyrus (did he watch the film?), and I wasn't overly impressed by that, either, but the producer does not rely overly much on that single artifact, IMO.

If scientists like Einstein can make errors in their formulas, is it inconceivable that Egyptologists can be off by a few centuries in theirs?