Saturday, January 27, 2024

Babel and Carbon Dates: Babel in Carbon Dates

Babel and Carbon Dates: Babel in Carbon Dates · Carbon Dates Are Different

Evolutionists Will HATE This Video . . .
Answers in Genesis | 2 Dec. 2022

36:01 Ah no, that's not post-Babel.

Cave art is mainly carbon dated 20 000 to 13 000 BP, Babel aka Göbekli Tepe to 9600 to 8600 BC, so this is before Babel, during Noah's remaining lifetime after the Flood.

It could be by Noah and his wife.

It's possible that shortly after the flood, it took some time for C14 levels to build up and stabilize to what we have today, making objects post-flood and shortly after appear older than they are

Hans Georg Lundahl
Not just possible @Pyr0Ben ... certain.

Before the Flood, C14 rose very slowly, probably because lots more CO2 was in the atmosphere, just as there was much more O2 and proportionately less N2.

After the Flood, the C14 was formed ten times more rapidly than now.

It had slowed down to present production rate (at least comparable) and reached roughly speaking stability by 1179 BC, when Troy fell.

@hglundahl how do you know that?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Pyr0Ben I did the maths.

It's at least one possible model, if you want to propose another one, go for it, we'll compare the strength and weakness of each.

If it's the "ten times faster" etc you ask about, otherwise, please be more specific about what you mean by "that"!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Oh, @Pyr0Ben ... if you meant on a more general level any given thing I obviously give signs of thinking I know, and which you consider you don't know, I learned a thing or two about drawing out implications from a certain C. S. Lewis and that's a habit that sticks with me.

If A is a known truth and B is a known truth, and A and B strictly imply C, I'll consider C a known truth as well.

@hglundahl I'm just interested in knowing more about your theory and how you came to that conclusion. No need to get defensive

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Pyr0Ben OK.

Back in 2016, I mentioned things like U-Pb being flawed due to possibly more relevant Pb being originally in the sample and added sth about the lines of your first comment. This was on a campus, the same where back then and now I enjoy access to a university library. I got the reply, if carbon 14 had needed to go up that fast, all vertebrate life on earth, anything except spiders would have been nuked.

I had some time previous to that been complaining why CMI, AiG, Kent Hovind didn't have any attempt of calibrating the « how much older than it really is » from century to century of real time. So, I decided to « kill two birds with one stone » (I like birds, I prefer the Swedish and German saying!). Calculating how quickly carbon 14 had risen would also imply calculating how many extra years a given real year would typically have.

I actually started out with the idea that anything from the Flood could be anything between 20 000 BP and 50 000 BP in carbon dates, as per what CMI presented as a ball park. You know the carbon dated Triceratops horridus page. But that was not viable as one value, so I decided to use the medium value of the dates for the single value.

Let’s be clear on one thing. The last three thousand years, carbon 14 has been roughly speaking stable in the atmosphere. If we suppose it has gone up from 80 to 100 pmC instead, then the halflife would need to be double. I don’t exclude this other hypothesis, but I work from the hypothesis 5730 years is the correct halflife, roughly speaking resulting in pmC values matching those for samples of the last 3000 years, the biggest « twiggle » being the Hallstatt plateau.

When I started, I was ready to give only the last 2500 years stability – fall of Jerusalem for Nebuchadnezzar to present. I was making a very clumsy try, adding extra years rather than calculating rising carbon 14 levels. On this version, Abraham came to get the time period of Göbekli Tepe. This made me look out twice later on when I met Göbekli Tepe in other media, on a more advanced stage of my research.

Yes, Göbekli Tepe was chronologically speaking pretty ideal for Genesis 10~11 Babel, and other criteria started to line up as well. If Graham Hancock believed someone had received visits from space ships, I saw the same similarity to a rocket launch and reread Genesis 11:4. « a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven » … what would they have called a rocket back then ?

So, later on I started to use beginning and ending carbon dates in the archaeology for Göbekli Tepe as beginning and end of the Babel project, from 350 to 401 after the Flood, i e from death of Noah to birth of Peleg. This is btw LXX minus second Cainan chronology for Genesis 11. If you use Masoretic or fuller LXX or Masoretic plus second Cainan, Göbekli Tepe will still be a good midpoint between Flood and Genesis 14. Abraham was c. 80 (older than 75, younger than 86), so his birth date and then 80 years later matches, I first thought « end of chalcolithic must be 3200 BC in carbon dates » but then found out reed mats from En Geddi had been carbon dated to 3500 BC. The archaeology of En Geddi and the chronology of Genesis 14 are linked through the work of one Osgood. If he had given more attention to carbon dating, he might have started doing the work I am doing. He left it to me, so to speak.

Genesis 14 = carbon dated « 3500 BC » is the most sure I am of anything in my tables. But Babel = Göbekli Tepe is not far behind.

The way I did the tables (after a certain time) was take points A and B of a given stretch where they have known Biblical and carbon dates, calculate the carbon levels from the extra years, let carbon level A decay according to the time A to B, deduce this from the carbon level B, divide this « replenishing of carbon 14 » concretely in that time by what « replenishing of carbon 14 » would normally be now, conclude the « how many times faster » from that and then apply across the smaller divisions between A and B.

@hglundahl I won't pretend to understand most of what you're saying, but it sounds super cool. You should make a video on it! I'll go ahead and subscribe to your channel so I'll see it :)

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Pyr0Ben I have a better idea.

I'm not a videast, I write on blogs, how about visiting my blog here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Tomorrow this dialogue will be up there, with some links to other material I made on it.

a) Latest and Very Latest versions of my tables:

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables

b) not all that is radiometric is carbon!

Do You Believe Homo Sapiens Underwent a Neurological Mutation to Us?

Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors? · Human Ancestor or Human during Flood? · These Footprints Look Human to Me?

c) my very first attempts, in French:

1) Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, 2) Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications, 3) Multiples échecs de trouver une meilleure table que les précédentes, 4) Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir, 5) Encore un échec ... C14 ... et un double, probablement (mais je serais bref), 6) Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, 7) Un essai, décision de demander l'aide à un professeur de maths, 8) Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, 9) Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?, 10) Et les autres méthodes radioactives?

36:50 I think you can guess Nimrod's pre-Babel aka pre-Neolithic, activity.

Mammoth hunters would probably be "mighty hunters before the Lord" both in the most sentimental sense, someone really good at hunting animals, and in the worst sense, someone good at human headhunting, at forcing other people to work for him - since Mammoth hunt arguably was dangerous team work.

39:07 Now, that child post-Babel is, as per the Ice age setting more likely to be pre-Babel but post-Flood, like remaining 350 years of Noah's life after the Flood.

The linguistic idea of calling him Jabed (applying Germanic sound shift to Japheth) is pretty bad other than as an injoke for anyone this far back - it is probable the sound shift happened somewhere around 500 BC, simultaneously in the Germanic family (counting as Indo-European) and in Hungarian and Etruscan (probably related) as well as in Phrygian, perhaps a bit earlier.