Daniel 3:1-6 reports that Nebuchadnezzar set up a giant image for all the people to worship. Archaeologists have found other evidence that this monarch sought to get his people more involved in nationalistic and religious practices. Similarly, Daniel records Nebuchadnezzar’s boastful attitude about his many construction projects. (Daniel 4:30) Not until modern times have archaeologists confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was indeed behind a great deal of the building done in Babylon. As to boastfulness—why, the man had his name stamped on the very bricks! Daniel’s critics cannot explain how their supposed forger of Maccabean times (167-63 B.C.E.) could have known of such construction projects—some four centuries after the fact and long before archaeologists brought them to light.
Philosophy behind this is even more flawed. Now they are saying that it is suprising that someone from 160 B.C.E would know something from 500 B.C.E. That's just nuts. It's not remotely suprising that someone would know what happened at the past or know something about the culture that thrived 400 years earlier. If they want to say that it is suprising that someone knew the past, they should explain it in more detail: Why is it suprising? They should show that the writer writing in 160 B.C.E. was not in the position (geografical or other) that he could know things that he wrote. Becase if the writer was rabbi in Judea living in 160 B.C.E, then it is not remotely suprising that he would have access to documents or information that tell what happened at the past.
It's just rubbish.