Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I · Creation vs. Evolution : "the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration" - Means What? · What Would Carbon Buildup, from Scratch, Normal Speed, Look Like? · How Long is a Halflife, Then?

Nothing Fails Like Bible History 7
Holy Koolaid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_BVi5HV4w0

0:13 Origin of languageS.

The people who argue that languagE (singular) started at Babel are not just very fringe within Christendom, they also lack direct support in the text and even contradict the 1st verse of Genesis 11, which is here:

And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

This was previous to the confusion of tongues, as that happened in verse 7 to 9.

0:42 "Everybody gets a language myth"

For some reason, my knowledge of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse myth, as well as my somewhat less deep one of Babylonian myth disagrees.

Theogony does not deal with why Greek, Trojan / Luwic, Kadmean / Theban / Canaanean are different languages.

Metamorphoses do not deal with why Latin and Etruscan are two more.

Gylfaginning as well as rest of Snorre Edda as well as Codex Regius sometimes nicknamed Poetic Edda does not explain why sons of Heimdall differ in Germanic and Romance languages, only why they differ in classes.

And if you can show me any passage in Upanishads or Mahabharata or Ramayana or Vedic hymns that explains why Sanskrit and Dravidic differ, congratulations!

Shouting out a claim doesn't substantiate it by examples.

0:52 "In one Aztec tradition" ... sure it was not in polemic against the Spanish tradition of Tower of Babel? You are aware Aztecs didn't die out and Nahuatl still has quite a few speakers?

Btw, the magical dove sounds a bit like a reference to the Holy Ghost, giving miraculous language knowledge on Pentecost day.

0:56 One Salishan tradition ... that's another New World first nations, right?

1:24 As to trickster god, I'd like to see your reference to Loki (which I visually recognise from the Marvel film) in Old Norse sources, not just in modern fan fic!

Or did trickster god refer to another Amerindian culture?

2:50 "eastward"?

The Bible in Hebrew says "miqqedem" and I checked elsewhere it means from the East. I don't know Hebrew, but I can see miqqedem in that verse and confer

"And Lot chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they were separated one brother from the other."
[Genesis 13:11]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/13-11.htm

It says "miqqedem" and as Lot went to Sodom, today under Dead Sea, this is from east to west.

Or :

"The Syrians from the east, and the Philistines from the west: and they shall devour Israel with open mouth, For all this his indignation is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 9:12]

Syria was partly north, partly east of Holy Land.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9-12.htm

Here miqqedem and meahowr are not translated from east and from west, but before and behind. But earlier translators had from the east and from the west.

Confer "to the east".

"And it passeth along from thence to the east side of Gethhepher and Thacasin: and goeth out to Remmon, Amthar and Noa."
[Josue (Joshua) 19:13]

https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-bible/joshua/19-13.html

To the east is here qedemah.

3:05 You can perhaps argue why we know it is "this little spot" rather than all of Mesopotamia?

Valkea Kirahvi

Isn't he saying that it's there, between the rivers, which basically means it's the whole Mesopotamia, sinse Mesopotamia is 'between the rivers'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi If he is, he's agreeing with me.

I say Babel was Göbekli Tepe, northwest Mesopotamia, in modern Turkey.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok..? Except the Bible clearly says it was in Babylon. Anyway, there were a ton of high buildings in all places and languages were never confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi The Bible says:

• it was in Shinar
• they ceased building the city

Not that it was clearly same spot as later Babylon.

"and languages were never confused."

You cannot say that for Göbekli Tepe, as it is pre-deciphered-writings.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Genesis 11:
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel because there the Lord confused the language

Babel, Bab-el is literally the same as Akkadian name of the city bab-ilum 'the gate of god'. You might recognise 'el' as hebrew for god. The Greek version Babylon is based on the Akkadian word.

What we have from Göbekli Tepe is not writing. They are carved pictures that might have had some symbolic meaning, but it doesn't seem to have any language parts coded in, thus it's not language and it can't be deciphered.

Also, having some writing we can't read doesn't mean the language has been confused. After the conquest the tradition of Maya hieroglyphic writing was killed, and we couldn't read it. When we deciphered it, it turned out that the local Maya were still speaking almost the same language as their ancestors.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi
"Babel, Bab-el is literally the same as Akkadian name of the city bab-ilum 'the gate of god'. You might recognise 'el' as hebrew for god. The Greek version Babylon is based on the Akkadian word."

I do not deny Babel and Bab-Ilu are same word. By the way, Moses arguably considered the claim to be "gate of God" a very confused claim and give a lampooning comment on it.

This doesn't mean they are necessarily same place.

Boston isn't the same place as Boston. Boston with the tea party is named after another Boston which was exorcised by a German monk gone to England, whose name was Botulf.

Paris in Texas isn't Paris the capital of France. There is a Rome in US as well, or more than one. Philadelphia in Pennsylvania is not Philadelphia in Asia Minor.

So, Babylon being literally named "Babel" doesn't mean it is the same place. The Douay Rheims and Vulgate versions use "Babel" only in Genesis 11.

"Also, having some writing we can't read doesn't mean the language has been confused."

Certainly not. But it means we cannot exclude it. It means we cannot prove whether one or many languages were spoken in what is now known as Göbekli Tepe. Which leaves room for language confusion being after its building period.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But is there any actual evidence of other places called Bab-ilum existing in the Ancient Middle-East, other than the famous one we are familiar with? I've been studying Akkadian, and I haven't heard of any. Regardless of what's being written in the Bible, there is a literal mountain of cuneiform texts written about the city.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Babilon in the Bible is actually refering to this site in Turkey? To my knowledge, no.

There is also no evidence that suggests that languages have ever been confused of even can be confused in the way Bible tells us. So the fact that we don't know what language the people were speaking doesn't make it reasonable to think that their languages might have been confused.

To me it seems that you just have this site in mind that you happen to like, and then you are attaching this story into it, without having any evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "But is there any actual evidence of other places called Bab-ilum existing in the Ancient Middle-East, other than the famous one we are familiar with?"

There is evidence - in Genesis 11 - for a place called Babel, and at least some for its being distinct from Akkadian / Amorrhaean Bab-ilu at 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E.

The classic times of ANE, GT would already be abandoned, and neighbouring city would be called variously Ur, Urfa or Edessa.

"I've been studying Akkadian, and I haven't heard of any."

When it was outside Classic Babylonia, why should you have heard of it? It would have been very marginal to Assyrians or even to Hittites.

"Regardless of what's being written in the Bible, there is a literal mountain of cuneiform texts written about the city."

The one which they interrupted the building of? I don't think so.

"Is there any evidence to suggest that the Babilon in the Bible is actually refering to this site in Turkey? To my knowledge, no."

While Hebrew text has Babel for both Babel and Babylon, Latin and Latin based English have Babel for Genesis 11 city (but Babylon in Genesis 10) and Babylon for the rest.

"There is also no evidence that suggests that languages have ever been confused of even can be confused in the way Bible tells us."

With the Biblical timescale, there is plenty, considering Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite don't seem to go back to a proto-language.

The way they were confused is a miracle, and the Bible neither says that men could work that miracle, nor that languages never changed in any other, non-miraculous, way.

"So the fact that we don't know what language the people were speaking doesn't make it reasonable to think that their languages might have been confused."

If it was within centuries after a world wide Flood, it is reasonable the building phase was with one language and the abandoning (Klaus Schmitt considered GT had been deliberately covered with sand) was a result of the Genesis 11:9 confusion.

"To me it seems that you just have this site in mind that you happen to like, and then you are attaching this story into it, without having any evidence."

My primary evidence is the Bible.

My next chain of evidence is, GT does not directly contradict any word in the Bible.

My third chain of evidence is, other proposed sites kind of do.

Babylon is way too late. Eridu would seem to be too late due to carbon dates of the site:

Creation vs. Evolution : Babel in Eridu?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/07/babel-in-eridu.html

Creation vs. Evolution : "On the Evolutionary Timescale" is NOT in my vocabulary
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-evolutionary-timescale-is-not-in-my.html

"Not found" and "prior to palaeolithic" (positions mainly proposed hitherto by CMI) is contrary to place being in Shinar - it's kind of hard to miss it, if we have already found GT in Mesopotamia.

Valkea Kirahvi

"While Hebrew text has Babel for both Babel and Babylon, Latin and Latin based English have Babel for Genesis 11 city (but Babylon in Genesis 10) and Babylon for the rest."
Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?

"If it was within centuries after a world wide Flood, it is reasonable the building phase was with one language and the abandoning (Klaus Schmitt considered GT had been deliberately covered with sand) was a result of the Genesis 11:9 confusion."

It's not resonable, because there is no good evidence to suggest that a world wide flood ever happened or even could happen, and no reason to suggest that their language was confused.

There a hundreds of cites that were abandoned by that time, and probably all of them has some things that were left uncompleted. Just look at any city today, there is always some construction going on.

"My next chain of evidence is, GT does not directly contradict any word in the Bible.
Yeah except it's name is not Babylon, and it's not in Šinar.

Can't really discuss dating before you tell me what date your version gives to the flood. The source you link makes the flood about 20 000 years older than what the universe is according to most flood believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?"

That is one option, but I don't agree with it.

"It's not resonable, because there is no good evidence to suggest that a world wide flood ever happened or even could happen, and no reason to suggest that their language was confused."

Yes, there is. The Bible.

There is also evidence for linguistic unity in travels and transports of stone good during stone ages (both pre-Flood with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and post-Flood without them). Now, check out this one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Rahan Linguistics Revisited
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/10/rahan-linguistics-revisited.html

"There a hundreds of cites that were abandoned by that time, and probably all of them has some things that were left uncompleted."

How many of them were in Shinar and how many were deliberately covered in sand?

And how many of the "hundreds" are carbon dated to before any deciphered language?

"Just look at any city today, there is always some construction going on."

That's another matter.

"Yeah except it's name is not Babylon, and it's not in Šinar."

It is not directly called Babylon in Akkadian sources. That does not mean it is not the original Babel. How many people writing about Boston even take note of the town that used to be called Iccanhoe?

"Can't really discuss dating before you tell me what date your version gives to the flood. The source you link makes the flood about 20 000 years older than what the universe is according to most flood believers."

Ah, now we are getting interesting.

I consider the Neanderthals and the Denisovans as pre-Flood races (I also consider Denisovan as synonymous with both Heidelbergian and Antecessor). This means, latest carbon dated body parts of either is a terminus post quem for the Flood. However, caves with paint would hardly have survived in shape during the Flood, so oldest cave painting would be post-Flood. This means, I give the Flood the carbon date of 40 000 BP, a k a 38 000 BC.

However, I do not give the Flood that actual date, I give it the date 2957 BC, as per Roman Martyrology for Christmas day, as it has been since oldest printed edition by Bellini. Same source also gives Abraham's birthyear as 2015 BC. In Genesis 14, Abraham needs to have been between 76 (vocation at 75, stay in Egypt = at least one year before he's back in Canaan) and 86 (birth of Ishmael). I say 80, making Genesis 14 the year 1935 BC. Do we have a carbon date for Genesis 14? Yes, due to end of chalcolithic En-Gedi (Asason-Tamar is En-Gedi). The reed mats used to evacuate treasures from En-Gedi before it was abandoned for rest of the bronze age are carbon dated to 3500 BC.

3	8 000		3500
-	2 957	-	1935
3	5 043		1565

So Flood has an excess of 35 043 carbon years and Genesis 14 of 1565.

I'll now use this online software:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator (University of Pennsylvania)
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Carbon level rises - atmospherically - from 1.442 pmC to 82.753.

Now, medium of the years is (2957+1935)/2 = 2446 BC.

Medium for carbon 14 levels is (1.442+82.753)/2 = 42.0975 pmC. But 42.0975 pmC gives 7150 years (either carbon years overall if you date an object today with that level in sample, or carbon extra years back then with atmosphere that level).

7150 + 2446 = 9596 BC = lowest level of Göbekli Tepe.

Now, Babel would have actually started earlier. 350 after the Flood, or not far. 2607 BC. To me that would be the real year for that carbon date. 2607 - 2446 = 161 years earlier than the midpoint. This means, the rise from 1.442 to c. 42.0975 pmC was 161 years quicker than predicted by mere mediums, and from 42.0975 to 82.753 pmC 161 years slower. If carbon 14 was produced faster before Babel began, than after, this means there was more cosmic radiation. This also explains why there was an ice age between Flood and Babel.

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Latin, the version translated hundreds of years after the original, used both the Hebrew and Greek name of the same city. Ok?"
"That is one option, but I don't agree with it."

You don't agree with what? That the Latin version is a translation?

"If carbon 14 was produced faster before Babel began, than after, this means there was more cosmic radiation."

Ok, interesting claim. Do you have any evidence for your assumption that the radio carbon dates are too old, or are you just starting from your conclusion of how old the things should be, and trying to force the evidence to support that? Are you aware that the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration, is, that the radiocarbon dates measured are a bit too young, not ten times too old.

"This also explains why there was an ice age between Flood and Babel."
I don't see the connection, care to elaborate the bit on that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "You don't agree with what? That the Latin version is a translation?"

It certainly is a translation, but the different use of words reflects something beyond just same translation of same word.

It could of course be as simple as using Hebrew version exactly once where an etymology is concerned, but I don't think that is all.

Carbon dated 2300 BC (start of your Akkadian language Bab-ilu) would be between real time 1725 and 1510 BC, that is when Israelites were in Egypt. Way after Babel. I think that's the exact issue : not same place at all, definitely not same history of habitation.

When we come to dating, you claim to have read 100's of Akkadian tablets, if it isn't 1000's. Could you for any decade except end of Neo-Babylonian empire (or even that) give a year by year chronology (floating in absolute time, no doubt, but at least fixed in relative time lapses) from Akkadian sources only, ignoring Persian, Greek and Hebrew ones? Could you even for any century give a decade by decade chronology?

I don't think you could. But you tell me, if I'm wrong. Oh, I would of course also be implying they are contemporary tablets, not centuries later like Berosus.

"Ok, interesting claim. Do you have any evidence for your assumption that the radio carbon dates are too old, or are you just starting from your conclusion of how old the things should be, and trying to force the evidence to support that?"

It so happens any calibration at all involves an assumption on how old things are. How old things are is not "my conclusion" but my starting point, never claimed otherwise. Or, rather, it is a conclusion, but in a field differing from carbon dating, namely how Julius Africanus and St. Jerome dated Biblical events.

"Are you aware that the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration, is, that the radiocarbon dates measured are a bit too young, not ten times too old."

I am also aware how frail tree ring and coral calibrations are (in detail for tree ring) and that (at least definitely tree ring) involves circularity of using carbon dating to support age of certain series.

"I don't see the connection, care to elaborate the bit on that?"

From "Little Ice Age" we have a C14 production that is too high. 1720 is marked as being 100 carbon years back from 1950. This is because 1720 comes at the end of Little Ice Age (Charles X had led an army with cavalry - riders walking beside horses - over frozen ice in 6.II.1658) where part of the reasons for that cold would have been the higher ionising radiation which also led to 1720 dating as 1850 in C14 terms.

Source for calibration by Cambridge:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

Valkea Kirahvi

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not sure if I get what you are asking for, but I don't claim to be an Assyriologogist either. If you mean do we have a certain chronology for years in modern calendar dates, then no. That doesn't mean that you can just pretend we don't have any idea and pull a random number out of your ass.

"How old things are is not "my conclusion" but my starting point, never claimed otherwise. "
Exactly what I said, you are starting from the result that you are supposed to be proving, and working backwards.

Can't find anything with the combination of C14, Little Ice Age and cosmic radiation, and no idea what that has to do with Charles X and horses. You are just hard to follow at this point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Valkea Kirahvi "I'm not sure if I get what you are asking for,"

What I said.

"but I don't claim to be an Assyriologogist either."

In that case, the "we" in the following is inappropriate.

"If you mean do we have a certain chronology for years in modern calendar dates, then no."

I am also claiming that you don't even have a decent internal chronology. You have "long chronology" and "short chronology" and I think both ultra-long and ultra-short. Why? Bc Babylonians and Assyrians were not as avid record keepers of years in the past as the Hebrews at least claimed to be.

"That doesn't mean that you can just pretend we don't have any idea and pull a random number out of your ass."

• 1) I do claim you do have some idea, like Naram-Lin, sorry, Naram-Sin, sorry again, Aram-Sin coming before Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Akkad coming before Hammurapi and Hammurapi coming before Nebuchadnezzar, with the Assyrian invasion of Assurbanipal and whoever the other guy was in between.
• 2) My numbers are most definitely not random, they are based on a Biblical chronology as elaborated by for instance Julius Africanus and St. Jerome.

"Exactly what I said, you are starting from the result that you are supposed to be proving, and working backwards."

Sorry, you are wrong. If carbon dates are the only thing you can start from, you can never get a calibration for them. But you do get calibrations, that is you do start with dates as given (and proven) independently of the carbon 14 method.

"Can't find anything with the combination of C14, Little Ice Age and cosmic radiation, and no idea what that has to do with Charles X and horses. You are just hard to follow at this point."

Or you are (deliberately?) obtuse. Sorry, there is no other word for it.

I gave you a link to a paper by Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) from 1993 and from Cambridge.

In it you have diagrams. If you look in the pdf on diagram uppermost on page 41, you will see a steep fall in carbon years, vertical axis going from 360 BP to just above 100 BP where horizontal axis goes from c. 1620 to 1720 AD. 1620 is dated as 360 years before 1950 = 1590. 30 years too old. This means 1620 had an atmosphere with 99.638 pmC. 1720 is dated as 105 years (I think) before 1950. That is, as 1845, that is 125 years too young. That means the carbon 14 level in 1720 was 101.524 pmC.

Now, 1620 to 1720 is 100 years. In 100 years, 100 pmC goes down to 98.798 pmC. But in 100 years the 100 pmC in the atmosphere usually on average are constant, meaning you replace 1.202 pmC. Now, 1620 atmosphere did not have 100, but 99.638 pmC. Should leave 98.44 pmC. But you have not 98.44 + 1.202 = 99.642, but rather instead 98.44 + 3.084 pmC to land on 101.524 pmC.

3.08364876 / 1.202 = 2.5654315807 times normal production of carbon 14.

This means, as presumable cause of the faster than normal production of carbon 14, you had more radiation from the cosmos.

Now, was it cold in 1620 - 1720? Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts

"The March Across the Belts (Swedish: Tåget över Bält) was a military campaign waged by the Swedish Empire across the ice between the Danish islands. It lasted between 30 January and 15 February 1658,[a] ending with a decisive victory for Swedish King Charles X Gustav during his first Danish war."

Note [a] states:

"The dates in this article are according to the Julian calendar, which was used in Sweden until the year 1700 when it was changed to the Swedish calendar. According to the Gregorian calendar, the campaign lasted from 9 February to 25 February 1658, and the Treaty of Roskilde was signed on 8 March 1658."

The Greater Belt is the one between Zealand (Sjælland) and Funen (Fyn) in Denmark. It was crossed 6 February Julian, that is 19 February astronomic and Gregorian. It was not crossed on foot but by riders walking on ice beside their horses. On a 19 February, the weather these days would normally have open water on Greater Belt. I e 1658 (which is between 1620 and 1720) is in a colder climate than now.

Now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850."

In other words, the decline in carbon years and the march in 19.II.1658 are in what is normally known as "little ice age".

In other words, the years with lower temperature are identic to years with higher solar activity and therefore faster production of carbon 14.

If you look at next diagram (back to Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) p. 41 of pdf), there is another steep decline in carbon years, which corresponds to a larger definition of Little Ice Age.

What exactly is not clear now?

3:43 Noah's son Shem lived 600 years.
Noah's grandson Arphaxad lived 338 years.
Noah's great-grandson (if such) Shela lived 433 years.

So, we need not count on Nimrod same generation of avuncular generation to Shela being only with those of his generation.

If the begat son when numbers in LXX are correct (totals would agree both versions), Babel would have ended in 401 after Flood, because that is when Peleg was born, grandson of Shela.

Generation 1 after Noah did consist of only six. We don't know how many subsequent generations consisted of, as only males are mentioned in Genesis 10 and only those who nations are from.

warpedweirdo

I take it cancer wasn't a thing back then...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@warpedweirdo I take it, some thing did shorten human lives, like cancer could have contributed.

But pre-Flood man was hardier on that one.

However, at the end of a process, lifespans of 600 (already shorter than pre-Flood ones) have shrunk to 100 - 200. Abraham, born c. 1000 years after the Flood (942 or 1070 without or with second Cainan) lived to 175.

Babel ended 401 or 529 after Flood (without or with second Cainan).

4:44 It would be fair to mention : if we go by Josephus or if it was Yasher, Nimrod would have been involved in some war before the Tower. This means these deaths and similar ones would account for the upper Palaeolithic deaths (after Neanderthals and Denisovans and Homo Erectus races had died in the Flood).

5:40 Place Babel as Göbekli Tepe.

Carbon date 8600 BC for real date 2556 (401 years after Flood).

Nineveh's oldest habitations are from carbon date 6000 BC ...

2287 B. Chr.

0.63387 pmC/100, so dated as 6037 B. Chr.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

B U T if it is Qermez Dere ...

Radiocarbon dating has estimated that Qermez Dere was built between c. 8500 BC and 7900 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qermez_Dere

8500 BC = less than ten years after 2556 BC.

7900 BC = 2489 B. Chr.

0.519918 pmC/100, so dated as 7889 B. Chr.

(same source)

67 years after Babel.

And I have another clue on identity of Erech:

Creation vs. Evolution : Lining up Cities
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/03/lining-up-cities.html

Babylon 2300 BC =/= NOT equal to Babel of Genesis 11.

It was founded by Amorrheans, and this after the Genesis 14 war and even after Joseph's time.

2300 BC = approx 1644 BC.

1655 B. Chr.

0.914498 pmC/100, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.

1633 B. Chr.

0.933283 pmC/100, so dated as 2203 B. Chr.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

6:17 Your argument about Nimrod living for 3000 years is based both on inflated carbon dates and in some cases on wrong identification of cities.

Keyboard runner

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Care to elaborate how you think carbon dates are inflated?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keyboard runner I think I linked to my article "new tables" on my blog "Creation vs Evolution" to do just that. So did my excerpt from it.

If 1655 BC atmosphere had a carbon 14 level of 91.45 pmC, it had an instant carbon age of 740, and all real age of an object from 1655 BC will after that have a carbon age inflated by 740 years. With 1633 and 93.33, the instant carbon age is 570 years. This means, 1655 gets carbon dated 2395, 1633 as 2203. This means 2300 is a carbon age from between 1655 and 1633, so probably 1644.

Carbon 14 levels were rising.

Keyboard runner

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Great, just give me the link.

I hope you can fully explain why seemingly absolutely no scientist can detect that "carbon inflation", but creationists can.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Keyboard runner Explanation is calibration difference.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html [same link again!]

6:35 "weren't abandoned"

Doug Petrovich argues Ziggurat of Eridu was left unfinished between carbon date 5400 BC and the very much later times of ... Amar-Sin.

In the case of Göbekli Tepe, the project whatever it was, was abandoned.