Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age
First, Tas Walker's:
| Uniformitarian age, years ago | Calibration factor | |
|---|---|---|
| Tas Walker's calibration curve, p. 8, Journal of Creation 29(1) 2015 | ||
| 0, present | 1 | |
| 1000 | ||
| 2000 | ||
| 3000 | 0.9 | |
| 4000 | ||
| 0.8 | ||
| 5000 | ||
| 0.7 | ||
| 6000 | >0.6 | |
| 0.6 | ||
| 7000 | ||
| 0.5 | ||
| 8000 | ||
| 9000 | ||
| 0.4 | ||
| 10,000 | <0.4 | |
| 11,000 | ||
| 12,000 | ||
| 13,000 | 0.3 | |
| 14,000 | ||
| 15,000 | ||
| 16,000 | ||
| 17,000 | ||
| 18,000 | ||
| 19,000 | >0.2 | |
| 0.2 | ||
| 20,000 | <0.2 | |
| etc. | ||
The diamonds in the diagram (see link to his article) are calibration points, points where he felt he could tie a geological event to a Biblical year.
Here is mine:
| Uniformitarian age, years ago | Real age | Calibration factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Using my Fibonacci table. | ||||
| 2580 | 2580 | 1 | ||
| 2769 | 2759 | 0.996 | ||
| 2968 | 2938 | 0.990 | ||
| 3167 | 3117 | 0.984 | ||
| 3386 | 3296 | 0.973 | ||
| 3625 | 3475 | 0.959 | ||
| This (above) is the abouts of the Exodus 1510 BC | ||||
| 3914 | 3654 | 0.934 | ||
| 4273 | 3833 | 0.897 | ||
| 4742 | 4012 | 0.846 | ||
| 5391 | 4191 | 0.777 | ||
| 6570 | 4370 | 0.665 | ||
| 8399 | 4549 | 0.542 | ||
| 12,278 | 4728 | 0.385 | ||
| Decimal (above) ending with three sixes, whatever that might mean ...* | ||||
| 31,707 | 4907 | 0.155 | ||
| And this last (4907 "BP" / 2957 BC) is the Biblical year of the Flood, and 31,707 stands for a variation between 20,000 and 50,000. | ||||
My own approach is rather different, there are about three calibration points, earliest of which is Flood AND I consider there was a fluctuation around 31,707 between 20,000 and 50,000 years "before present", which I do not take into account, I streamline this fluctuation into one C14 level (3.90625 % of present/stable) which gives so and so many extra years (26,800). Later on, with higher levels, there would be less fluctuation, so, the closer the table comes to the present, the less fluctuation it represents. Or the less necessary fluctuation.
Actually, a calculation factor is not exactly a good description of what happens mathematically, since every level lower than that of present gives an exact amount of extra years. I think my first attempt of a recalibration was botched because I took discrepancy between historic date of Trojan War (1100 BC according to my then sloppy memory) and C14 dating of one level of Troy (1200 BC, dito) as meaning a calibration factor of 31/32, and I thought this was significant about the C14 level - no, it is not the calibration factor, but the extra years which is so.
My timescale is based on real years, since it is in those that the rise of C14 levels actually occurred. The distances are a certain fraction of a halflife (c. 179 years). For conventional dates this looks very odd of course, that is why the original posting of my recalibration has a left hand column of real dates and gives conventional dates (more or less corresponding) in the definition.
Obviously, we also differ about Biblical dates, me using the Christmas Chronology of the Catholic Church (abolished in Novus Ordo sect 1994) for the years of Flood, Abraham, Exodus, while he uses a more Masoretic or KJV based Chronology.
I have some diffidence about early very steep rise of C14, though I calibrated successive rises of C14 on a rather fine mathematic model, the Fibanocci series (by values of which I multiplied a fraction of the rise, not sure about all details any more), since I consider it possible that Göbekli Tepe, first off was intended by Nimrod as a kind of launching ramp (notice it is the tip which shall reach into heaven, not the tower which shall be so high that it does so) and second therefore is the real tower of Babel. However, 358 years after Flood seems a bit early for the days of Peleg in LXX Chronology. Therefore, this table fits a bit better, perhaps with Ziggurat of Ur as Tower of Babel and Woolley's Ur (rather than Urfa close by Göbekli Tepe) as as Ur of the Chaldees.
Also, the very first period after the Flood seems a bit crowded, man would have come into South America within 179 years after Flood, for instance.
This latter point could be arranged. For instance, if there was an early spread before attempting to build a city and a tower and if it continued beside Tower building and if the later spread - Genesis 11:[9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries. - ... partly followed same ethnicities as the earlier one, which as more sporadic would have been not mentioned in Bible.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Saint Batholomew, Apostle
23.VIII.2016
* Meaning the full decimal as shown on calculator. Not the one I showed, which is only three first decimals.
