How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?

How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event? · Ussher compared to St Jerome

On my view the traditional 40 years of the Babel event (starting 5 years after birth of Peleg, and ending in Dispersion of Nations 40 years after that) are the 1000 carbon years of Göbekli Tepe.

Suppose St Jerome's standard for post-Flood patriarchs is LXX without the second Cainan, then Peleg was born 401 years after the Flood, i e 2957 BC and 401 years later is 2556 BC. Babel / GT starts getting built 2551 BC, and 2511 Babel / GT is abandoned unfinished because communication problems make continued collaboration meaningless.

Then 2551 BC dates as 9600 BC, 7049 extra years = 42.626 pmc being original level of carbon in the objects at start of GT.

And 2511 BC dates as 8600 BC, 6089 extra years = 47.875 pmc being original level of carbon at end of GT. In the atmosphere and in the objects, of course.

And 40 years decays 100 to 99.517, and therefore replaces 0.483 pmc normally in our times.

If no new carbon had formed, 42.626 pmc would have sunk to 42.42011642 pmc, we'll say "42.42" for short. In order to maintain level, what needed forming was 0.483 pmc - would actually have landed us on 42.9 pmc, a slight rise, the kind of rise envisaged by the Creationists who say that stable level has not yet been reached.

What instead formed was ... 47.875 pmc - "42.42" pmc = "5.455" pmc.

And "5.455" pmc / 0.483 pmc = "11.29". So, carbon was forming 11 times faster then as compared to now.

This would mean that the annual radiation dose from cosmos on atmosphere would have been at ground level "11.29" times larger than the normal dose today, 0.39 milliSieverts per year, thus adding up to "4.4" milliSiverts per year - a little larger part of cosmic radiation than today the total background radiation on average on Earth, but smaller than background radiation in for instance Princeton.

This is clearly feasible. I am not entering too much into causation - magnetic field and solar activity both ultimately obey God - but the radiation dose would not have killed off humanity and mammals.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Ignatius of Loyola
31.VII.2017

One Theory Solving Several Problems

In my young days as a Creationist, and even in my beginning as a Creationist internet writer, I was fine with saying things on the line of:

"Carbon 14 level is perhaps still rising, and the beyond Biblical dates are because the level has to now risen from the level at the real dates, onto which a higher original carbon level is projected, leading to a greater difference between original and inspected levels, leading to longer ages of radioactive decay. This is because the level is a kind of equilibrium between production of new and decay of the sample in the atmosphere."

Two things I have had to modify since studying the matter in mathematical depth, making tentative tables (more than one, not claiming one above the others as the entirely correct one, at least not yet), one is admitting the level is perhaps still rising, if it were we would not be seeing consistent half lives. If a lower level than the stable equilibrium is taken as being so (and the theory I reject says we are still rising to equilibrium, i e are still lower than it) the previous rise being taken as stable and checked against data which are checkable will result in too short a half life and also in a varied half life, not consistent between the centuries.

The level must therefore already have reached equilibrium.

The other thing, not stated but understood in above usual Creationist statement, is that the carbon rise has been due to a production of new carbon 14 not offset by decay only because not yet reaching the equilibrium, i e a production of new carbon due to same level of cosmic radiation, working at same speed.

Take the centuries between Abraham in Genesis 14 and Joseph in Egypt at end of Genesis, then the ones between Joseph and Joshua's taking Jericho.

Now, suppose that Joseph was Imhotep, contemporary with Djoser. This means somewhat shorter extra time than a thousand years (real time for Joseph, c. 1700 BC, dated time for Djoser c. 2600 BC). On the other hand, if Kenyon dated fall of Jericho to 1550 BC and it occurred in 1470 BC, there were only 80 extra years. With this in mind, the rise in carbon must have depended on a formation of new carbon about 6 times faster than now. Suppose the 1700 BC for Joseph corresponds to sth archaeologically far later than Djoser, then there is an even steeper rise in the time between Abraham (if contemporary to Chalcolithic of En-Geddi) and Joseph. Or suppose the dating of Jericho is about the wrong one, it is Garstang's city III which Joshua destroyed, then the rise must be far steeper after Jericho and up to when carbon dates become directly reliable.

So, I have to posit more cosmic radiation for certain parts of this time, especially between Flood and Abraham, and most especially steeper between Flood and Babel than between Babel and Abraham.

• It will solve the issue at hand, with more cosmic radiation, carbon 14 formed faster.
• It will provide a solution for how ice age froze so quickly, cosmic radiation freezes the wheather (Little Ice Age seems to have had more cosmic radiation, since calibrations show samples from say 1600 AD show more C14 than normally expected).
• It will have shortened telomeres in the end portions of chromosomes, shortening the life span, and more so, the longer someone was himself exposed to the radiation before having offspring - this could be the primary mechanism by which God shortened life spans after Flood.
• But now I found it it solves yet another problem, namely one dating method. Here:

"EPR/ESR also has been used by archaeologists for the dating of teeth. Radiation damage over long periods of time creates free radicals in tooth enamel, which can then be examined by EPR and, after proper calibration, dated. Alternatively, material extracted from the teeth of people during dental procedures can be used to quantify their cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation. People exposed to radiation from the Chernobyl disaster have been examined by this method."

The archaeologists are presuming, wrongly, that exposure to ionizing radiation has been roughly same level - i e mainly the normal background radiation, of which cosmic radiation is just a part.

Well, suppose at times the cosmic radiation was comparable to or greater than other factors of background radiation, this means that the teeth will look older than they really are.

I think this might also take care of higher ages in thermoluminiscence dating:

"Natural crystalline materials contain imperfections: impurity ions, stress dislocations, and other phenomena that disturb the regularity of the electric field that holds the atoms in the crystalline lattice together. These imperfections lead to local humps and dips in the crystalline material's electric potential. Where there is a dip (a so-called "electron trap"), a free electron may be attracted and trapped.

The flux of ionizing radiation—both from cosmic radiation and from natural radioactivity—excites electrons from atoms in the crystal lattice into the conduction band where they can move freely. Most excited electrons will soon recombine with lattice ions, but some will be trapped, storing part of the energy of the radiation in the form of trapped electric charge (Figure 1).

Depending on the depth of the traps (the energy required to free an electron from them) the storage time of trapped electrons will vary as some traps are sufficiently deep to store charge for hundreds of thousands of years."

I think a theory which solves that many problems merits serious consideration.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
St. Olaf, King and Martyr
29.VII.2017

PS, I came to think of this à propos the "dark ages" of recovery between Fall of Troy and new beginnings of Archaic Art in Greece, etc along East Mediterranean : there were about 3 centuries, about the time of recovery between Flood and Babel, between Babel and Abraham on my theories./HGL

When Are Implicit Citations Licit?

Short answer : when they are explicit.

CIRCA CITATIONES IMPLICITAS IN S. SCRIPTURA CONTENTAS
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050213_cit-implicitas_lt.html

Fr. David Fleming, O.F.M. (Franciscan, Ordo Fratrum Minorum, Order of Friars Minor) penned a response by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 13.II.1905, 112 years ago and some months.

Here is my personal translation from Latin of Q and response (not trying to make this an official translation of whole document):

Q (anon.)

Whether in order to untie the difficulties which occur in many texts of Sacred Scripture, which seem to relate historic facts, it is licit for a Catholic exegete to assert it is here question of a tacit or implied citation of a document written down by a non-inspired author, whose every assertion the inspired author does not at all intend to approve or make his own, which therefore cannot be held immune from error?

R (Fr Fleming)

In the negative, except the case in which, saving the sense and judgement of the Church, it be proven with solid arguments:

• 1° That the Hagiographer (holy author) is really citing the words or documents of someone else;
  
  
• and 2° That he is neither approving them, nor making them his own, so that he can be rightly considered as not speaking in his own name.

What does the phrase "saving the sense and judgement of the Church" mean? It means the proof or supposed such must not contradict the sense of the Church or the judgement of the Church. A judgement can come later, but cannot go against the sense of the Church. The sense of the Church is however already there, it is Tradition. If it is traditional that Moses was not citing some fun but unserious spoof on Canaanean mythology and adding tacitly "take it for what it is worth, it's a joke!" obviously even the Church cannot judge that Moses was doing that, since such a judgement would be going against the sense of the Church. Therefore there can be no solid argument actually proving this was the case to a Catholic exegete, since he must abide by sense and judgement of the Church.

What do "solid arguments" mean?

Some philosopher has "made proofs" by radiometric dating that the account given by Moses cannot stand together with sound reason? No, that is not a solid argument, like it is not a solid argument is some philosopher by Hegelian dialectic has proven God is not personal.

Or, there is a Canaanean text or a Sumerian text, which looks suspiciously like the account of Moses, but which he cannot have approved since it involves idolatry and polytheism? No, that is not a solid argument, like it is not a solid argument to dismiss a canonical Gospel just because it involves some suspicious similarity to a Gnostic one.

Or, we find exactly one Syriac manuscript with a verse inserted between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 stating the following is an opinion? No, it is not a solid argument, that manuscript could be a fake.

So, the one solid argument one could be dealing with is when the "implicit" and "tacit" citation is not so.

Suppose a Catholic exegete has been singing a psalm from a corrupted manuscript, in which the words "the unwise hath said in his heart" are lacking, and been singing the words "there is no God", he would indeed be right to consider King David must have tacitly cited someone else he did not approve of. A very solid argument would be to go out into the wide world and find a lot of editions in which the words "The fool said in his heart:" are not lacking.

Hence my summary of the answer : they are licit to assume when they are explicit.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Praxedis, Virgin*
21.VII.2017

* I take it St Laurence of Brindisi was not today any earlier than under "John XXIII", so is really tomorrow, his heavenly birthday. He is however a saint, canonised by Pope Leo XIII.

If Carbon Calculator should shut down, how do we know the percentages vs the years (as portions and multiples of halflife)?

I did a calculation, considering things like 1/8 of a halflife should give a percentage of original quantity corresponding to 8th root of one half. Here is my rough calculation, below is the link I am so often using instead of calculating like this:



And here is the carbon calculator online too:

ppt.li/3m8 being short link for:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Theoretic Demography Limits

Theoretic Demography Limits · Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People · Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Why did I reduce 58.5 to 29.25 for 30 years, before cubing for 100 years?

Probably because I wanted increase per individual, but if so I should have multiplied with six instead of three.

Either way, if we don't look at typical demographics which are downtoned by marriages becoming economically impossible or people becoming too insignificnat to marry or so, but at physical theoretical limits, we could have had quite a lot of people between Flood and Babel even if it was around 101 after Flood.

In fact even traditional estimates like Josephus Philo Judaeus quoted by Petrus Comestor* saying before Noah died (350 after Flood) there were 24100 men, plus women and children, is far below this extreme actual physical limit./HGL



* My translation is this link, but above links to where quoted in apt portion.

Excursus on Previous

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

I forgot to give Biblical dates for Graham Hancock's beginning of Younger Dryas:

My Syncellus table gives for 10800 BC this span:

XIII 2865 BC

33.994 pmc 11 785 BC

Shem +

2858 BC

Peleg *

2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC

44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Interim II and St Jerome A:

iij 2820 BC

33.849 pmc, 8950 years +, 11 770 BC

iu 2751 BC

45.062 pmc, 6600 years +, 9351 BC

or:

III 2778 BC

35.648 % = + 8550 years, 11,328 BC

IV 2688 BC

51.849 % = + 5450 years, 8138 BC

St Jerome B nearly pinpoints the year when Young Dryas began, if correct:

2744 BC

37.548 pmc, + 8100 years, 10844 BC

So, Peleg is born when the earth is divided. Arguably, Younger Dryas did isolate Americas geographically from Old World. If Nimrod was counting on Uranium from the mines at present used in Canada, he could spend all forty years the project according to a tradition actually went on, and still get no Uranium.

In my view, of course, there were minor colonies previous to Göbekli Tepe / Tower of Babel, but one could also consider them as expedition forces. And Younger Dryas cut the Palaeo-Indian ones very effectivly off from Old World, as well as reducing them.

As you may note, the Biblical dates and the carbon 14 level in atmosphere differ. How many extra years an object "had for free" because of lower carbon content, depends on how much the carbon content was. This means that one can play around with different carbon levels for any given carbon dating. Obviously, those who stick to a carbon level of 100 % of the "70 tons" in our atmosphere back anytime after 100,000 BP will consider the carbon date was the real date or close enough, i e 12800 years ago, and I obviously disagree.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra
(vel sicut in bloggo, ut infra)

PS 11600 years ago "and that is the date which Plato gave for the destruction of Atlantis".

Which he had himself received from Egyptian priests, I think via Solon. Satan was well aware of the carbon rise, God had probably allowed him to know what the carbon dates would be and when they would be made, so Satan could adapt the fake Egyptian date for Atlantis falling to the carbon date of end of Younger Dryas./HGL

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

I thought Younger Dryas was during the Göbekli Tepe period.

9600 BC to 8600 BC, as per carbon dates (which I as you know telescope into Biblical chronology). Here (19:59 in video and some previous) Hancock is saying it was really earlier 10800 BC to 9600 BC as per carbon dates.

That would imply Younger Dryas could have been part of what motivated Babel and also could have reduced many stray populations elsewhere, so that the ones assembling in Shinar could in a sense be considered equivalent of whole mankind.

To those who do not know it, Shinar = Mesopotamia. Not Sumer, even if words are related and Sumer is in Shinar too, but all of Mesopotamia. Everything South of Zagros, at least and perhaps into Zagros where not too folded, if it is between Euphrates and Tigris. And Göbekli Tepe is East of Euphrates and West of Tigris. GT (37°13′23″N) is further south than Keban (38°47′33″N), where Kara Su and Murat Su join for an undisputed length of Euphrates (some would consider Euphrates begins further up, and Murat Su is also Euphrates).

GT is approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa, approximately 760 m (2,490 ft) above sea level. Şanlıurfa, Urfa or Al-Ruha is is situated on a plain about eighty kilometres east of the Euphrates River. If that plain counts as continuing the plains South of Zagros ... well, then GT is in Shinar.

Back to where we started. Josephus 1:4

1. Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.

2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers !

3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: "When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: "Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia."

Here is Petrus Comestor:

Quare vero primus coeperit dominari ostendit, agens de quodam filio Noe, de quo non egit Moyses, sic dicens: Centesimo anno tertiae chiliadis natus est Noe filius in similitudinem ejus, et dixit eum Jonithum . Trecentesimo anno dedit Noe donationes filio suo Jonitho, et dimisit eum in terram Ethan, et intravit eam Jonithus usque ad mare orientis, quod dicitur Elioschora, id est solis regio, hic accepit a Domino donum sapientiae, et invenit astronomiam.

Ad quem veniens Nemrod, Gigas decem cubitorum, eruditus est ab eo, et accepit ab eo consilium, in quibus locis regnare coepisset. Jonithus iste futuros quosdam eventus praevidit, et maxime de ortu quatuor regnorum, et occasu eorum per successionem. Quam etiam plane prophetavit Daniel. Et praedixit discipulo suo Nemrod, quod primi regnarent de Cham, de quo Belus descendit, post de Sem Medi, et Persae, et Graeci, post, de Japheth Romani. A quo rediens Nemrod accensus amore dominandi, sollicitavit genus suum de Sem, ut imperaret aliis, quasi primogenitus, sed noluerunt; et ideo transivit ad Cham, qui acquievit, et regnavit inter eos in Babylone, et exinde dictus est de filiis Cham.

Sed si vere fuit de filiis Cham, tunc nulla est quaestio quare inter eos regnaverit; hujus exemplo coepit regnare Jectam, vel Jetram, vel Uram super filios Sem, Suphene, vel Sustene super filios Japheth. Narrat autem Philo Judaeus, vel ut alii volunt Gentilis philosophus, in libro Quaestionum super Genesim, quod ex tribus filiis Noe adhuc ipso vivente sunt nati viginti quatuor millia virorum et centum, extra mulieres et parvulos, habentes tres super se duces, quos praediximus.

Post obitum vero Noe, moventes pedes suos ab Oriente, convenerunt duces in unum, in campum Sennaar, et timentes diluvium, consilio Nemrod volentis regnare, coeperunt aedificare turrim, quae pertingeret usque ad coelos, habentes lateres pro saxis, et bitumen pro caemento. Descendit autem Dominus, ut videret turrim (Gen. XI), animadvertit, ut puniret, et ait ad angelos: Venite, et confundamus linguam eorum, ut non intelligat quisque vocem proximi sui. In hac divisione nihil non fecit Deus, quia voces eaedem sunt apud omnes gentes, sed dicendi modos, et formas diversis generibus divisit.

Which I translated as:

But he shows why at first he started to dominate, speaking of a certain son of Noah not mentioned by Moses, saying so: in the hundredth year of the third millennium [after the Flood?] a son was born to Noah in similitude of himself, and he called him Jonithus [Jonathan?] In the threehundredth year Noah gave gifts to his son Jonithus, and sent him into the land Ethann and Jonithus entered into it all the way unto the sea of the East, which is called Helioschora, which is Region of the Sun, he received of the Lord the gift of wisdom and invented astronomy.

To him came Nemrod, a Ten Cubit Giant, was taught by him, and received from him Counsil in which locations he was to start reigning. This Jonithus foresaw some future events, and most of all of the beginning of the four kingdoms and the fall of them in succession. Which succession also Daniel clearly prophesied? And he foretold to his student Nemrod, that the first were to rule of Cham, of whom descends Belus, then of Shem, Medes, Persians, Greeks, then, of Japheth, Romans. From whom Nemrod came back inflamed with love of lording over others, asked for the help of his own of Shem, in order to command others, as he was firstborn, but they would not; and therefore he went over to Cham, who acquiesced, and ruled among them in Babylon, and therefore he is said to be of the sons of Cham.

But if he really was of the sons of Cham, then there is no question at all why it would be among them that he ruled; following his example Jectam, or Jetram, or Uram started to rule over the Sons of Shem, Suphene or Sustene over the Sons if Japheth. But Philo Judaeus tells us, or according to others it is a Pagan Philosopher, in the Book of Questions over Genesis, that of the three sons of Noah, while he was still alive, were born 24100 men, not counting women and as yet small ones, having the three dukes or leaders which we mentioned.

After the Death of Noah, moving their feet from the East, the leaders convened in one place, in the field of Shinear, and fearing [another] Deluge, on the counsel of Nemrod who wanted to rule, started making a Tower, which would reach into the skies, having brick instead of stones and "slime" - asphalt - instead of mortar. But the Lord want down to see the Tower (Genesis XI), took heed to punish and told the angels: come let us confound their tongue, so that each one may not understand the speach of his neighbour. In this divison all was done by God, since the speach is the same in all nations, but the ways of saying things and the forms He divided in diverse kinds.

Now, let's reason a bit about this. Ethann, Helioschora ... could it be Gunung Padang?

• 1) It is clearly further East than Göbekli Tepe;
• 2) If Younger Dryas involved some gigantic Floods (though inferior to Flood of Noah), this would explain the shyness of getting onto a plain (and would explain a preference for a plain where it is fairly high, like GT, now 760 meters above sea level, over a lower plain, like 34 m (100 feet) above present sea level;
• 3) Gunung Padang flourished (or started to get built) 20 000 BP, 18 000 BC, carbon dates, if Hancock is right about drill holes. This would be before Younger Dryas - and Younger Dryas is very evocative of "But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty:"

On the other hand, we have:

"for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed."

However, this is contradicted by the information from perhaps Philo, perhaps someone else, in Petrus Comestor, of a land governed by Jonithus (I wonder if it is a corruption of Jonathan, because Jonathas is a correct form of Jonathan in nominative, and Jonithus could involve phonetic corruption of mid a to i, Jonithas, and scribal error of -us for -as).

The refusal to send out colonies did not necessarily mean none existed, and it could have been less absolute than tradition recalled.

We also have Josephus describing a pyramid (so broad it looked less high than it was) and this contradicts the known facts of Göbekli Tepe - but could be due to a confusion between GT and Gunung Padang.

So, I am eagerly awaiting, will Graham Hancock say sth about people fleeing Indonesia getting to Göbekli Tepe with agriculture and know-how? We'll see.

We also have lack of bricks and bitumen used as mortar - but Gunung Padang is nearly not excavated at all, and GT is excavated to about 1/50 of total extent.

Genesis 11:4 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

Here I must also caution against a mistake I made earlier, saying the rocket was not being built for launching, but only planned. Presuming a three step rocket could be described as a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven, it must have been ready for arrival of uranium (if my reconstruction is right), because the tower (rocket?) was already to be seen:

Verse 5 : And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

That said, I'll here resume listening. Meanwhile, take a look at this:

"He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power."

An accurate description of socialism, in its initial ideals and its realisation, isn't it? Eerily accurate!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Symphorosa and her seven sons*
Martyrs of Tivoli
18.VII.2017

* Tibure sanctae Symphorosae, uxoris sancti Getulii Martyris, cum septem filiis suis, scilicet Crescente, Juliano, Nemesio, Primitivo, Justino, Stacteo et Eugenio. Horum mater, sub Hadriano Principe, ob insuperabilem constantiam, primo caesa diu palmis, deinde crinibus suspensa, novissime saxo alligata, in flumen praecipitata est; filii autem, stipitibus ad trochleas extensi, diverso mortis exitu martyrium compleverunt. Eorumdem corpora postea Romam translata, et, Pio Quarto Summo Pontifice, in Diaconia sancti Angeli in Piscina fuerunt inventa.

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

At 15:21, Graham Hancock has just said that archaeology is a very imprecise science, archaeologists are interpreting the data according to their philosophy, cited a man who says archaeology doesn't qualify as a science.

"Archaeology is misleading the public"

Well, there is more than one creationist who would agree on that point!

Too bad GH is not including carbon dating as one of the things subject to interpretation, since the datings are built on cosmic radiation having kept carbon 14 at a constant amount of 70 tons in the atmosphere (or else, that wiki was ... well no, it is still there):

Cosmic rays kept the level of carbon-14[73] in the atmosphere roughly constant (70 tons) for at least the past 100,000 years, until the beginning of above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the early 1950s. This is an important fact used in radiocarbon dating used in archaeology.

The reference is:

Trumbore, Susan (2000). Noller, J. S.; J. M. Sowers; W. R. Lettis, eds. Quaternary Geochronology: Methods and Applications. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. pp. 41–59. ISBN 0-87590-950-7.

"The tendency is to reject the new facts because they don't fit in with the theory - and that is the opposite of [good science.]"

I think I can see some relevance to such a remark ... Hancock also speaks of a knowleddge filter, attributing the term to Michael Kremer*, Forbidden Archaeology. Some things are so out of the way compared to current theories that ...

"It never reaches the public."

And in conclusion:

"It takes someone who is marginal to the field, to bring that information."

Because those who are way inside it, are tied up with the pre-fabricated theorems, the theories already known, and being falsified.

I am NOT sure this is correct, it looks like a generalisation on history of sciences.

I think however it could be sth which is more and more like truth these days.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel ut infra)

* Correction : Michael Cremo.

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

From same video as previous:

"At exactly the moment when Göbekli Tepe is created, we get the sudden spread of agriculture in the same region, a region which had not known agriculture before, where people were hunters and gatherers : suddenly they know how to do agriculture."

With conventional carbon dates reaching back to 40 000 BP for arrival of Homo Sapiens (often considered as distinct from Neanderthal in species) North of Mediterranean, and other methods adding millions, also without agriculture, we get the kind of mystery Graham Hancock reacts to.

Hunting and gathering could have been a very good livelyhood with no incentive at all to invent sth better.

Or man could have been incapable of inventing it in his own, having lived most of its time without it. Giving us conclusions like what I think Hancock's are, from title of video : Atlanteans or extraterrestrials arrived.

Or man was simply after some centuries of experimentation recovering agriculture after the Flood. But this is only possible if carbon content was rising so steeply in atmosphere, that a few centuries look like tens of thousands of years in carbon dates.

Maybe even before this, since the scarce centuries could involve the chance of wheat growing but not getting preserved to us before Babel / Göbekli Tepe project.

I read of a wheat ear found dated 20 000 BP in Holy Land. That would be a century or two or three earlier in Biblical chronology, which is the true one. CMI mentioned starch found on clubs of cave men - meaning they did have wheat.* And someone who believes evolution thinks millet comes from a Chinese wild grass cultivated way earlier.**

So, Hancock is wrong on start of agriculture and how long man was without it before that. So is every evolutionist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Alexius of Rome
17.VII.2017

PS "they must have been a specially inspired group of hunter gatherers" ... GH resuming archaeologists of similar evolutionist persuasions. Obviously, if the real beginning was before the Flood, and the tens of thousands of years were just some post-Flood centuries, the matter is in another light./HGL

Notes:

* ‘Stone Age’ flour demolishes another evolutionary preconception
by David Catchpoole, Published: 4 November 2010 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/stone-age-flour

** Could not find reference, found this instead:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309722/

This is however only about the time of Göbekli Tepe or just after, I had read another one, in which this was earlier, if I recall correctly.

Update: found reference:

New Scientist : Farming has deep roots in Chinese ice age
By Colin Barras, 18 March 2013
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23290-farming-has-deep-roots-in-chinese-ice-age/

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe?

Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous

I am listening to him right now.*

"6000 years older than any other known megalithic structure"

Well, these reduce pretty nicely in my carbon tables.

Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt (Syncellus)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/06/continuing-interim-iii-to-joseph-in.html

Peleg *

2829 BC

XIV 2824 BC

44.057 pmc 9600 BC

Arphaxad +

2791 BC

XV 2780 BC

49.459 pmc 8600 BC

Cainan +

2763 BC

...

XXX 2170 BC

86.955 pmc : 3325 BC

Terah +

2153 BC

XXXI 2131 BC

87.34 pmc : 3250 BC

Reduction

9600 BC - 3250 BC = real time 2824 BC to 2131 BC.

Interim II St Jerome A / St Jerome Fibonacci
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/interim-ii-st-jerome-a.html

iu 2751 BC

45.062 pmc, 6600 years +, 9351 BC

...

xuij / XIII 1883 BC

84.35 %, + 1400 years, 3283 BC

Reduction

9351 BC - 3283 BC reduces to real time 2751 BC to 1883 BC

Flood to Abraham, St Jerome B
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/flood-to-abraham-st-jerome-b.html

2637 BC

43.262 pmc, + 6950 years, 9587 BC

....

2424 BC

47.374 pmc, + 6200 years, 8624 BC

...

1928 BC

83.689 pmc, + 1450 years, 3378 BC

Reduction

9587 BC - 3378 BC = real time 2637 BC - 1928 BC

Seven centuries minus seven years for the sixthousand years he thinks of. Or a bit more according to St Jerome B. Or even 868 according to St Jerome A.

"It just suddenly appears in the human record"

For evolutionists, yes.

For Christians, 2824 BC (Syncellus beginning of Babel = in my view of GT) was 534 years after a Flood**, which indeed wiped off the Nodian civilisation, but not all the knowledge which had built it. Ham's wife Noema was sister of Tubal-Cain and half sister of Jabal and Jubal. I presume that Japheth's wife was part Neanderthal and knew how to survive as hunter gatherer, as long as Noema's knowhow remained unused due to lack of good materials and sufficient labour force.

"dated firmly and without any question to 11600 years ago"

That is without reckoning with the reduction one can make with a theory of carbon rise, obviously.

"They went to enormous effords" ... to deliberately bury Göbekli Tepe.

Here he is right. And this does fit in with Genesis 11:[8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

When they covered it, they ceased to build there. And if any faction or factions regained some territorial control over the Eastern part of Anatolia or the NorthWest of Shinar, they had a motive to hide the monument to their disaster. To their momumental failure. One day they were all speaking Hebrew (some few men outside, either on expeditions, like Palaeo-Indians, or shirking, i e the Hebrew tribe), next day they could not speak to each other. Everything broke down. They were ready to scatter on more local business, like the Disciples going off to fish after what they thought was the end. Someone had an interest to hide this. For in Babel, this was the end, there was no resurrection of their one world project.

Now I'll post it in a coment, before hearing more.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bonaventura
14.VII.2017

Notes:

* Ancient Extinction Revealed: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe & Mysteries of the Gods with Graham Hancock
TheLipTV2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EkJlZE3jY

** St Jerome A has GT somewhere between 2751 BC and a little before and 2683 BC, 206 to well before 274 after Flood, St Jerome B between 320 and 533 after Flood - longer than the 40 years that a certain tradition considers the building took, before God interrupted it.

"what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained"

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · · http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/12/neanderthals-related-to-michael-oards.html · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

Perhaps Kent Hovind too ... now, here* is the quote:

More and more every year, researchers are inadvertently proving what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained: that Neandertals are an extinct group of people that lived shortly after Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babel incident and eventually died out.

I definitely agree that they were a group of people. Fred Butler on CMI* cites:

Archaeological evidence now suggests they were capable of symbolic thought, had a basic knowledge of chemistry, medicine and cooking, and perhaps some capacity for speech.**

When they are supposed to have been a distinct such is another matter.

That some dating methods not by carbon spell out the underground circles to have been 175,000 BP has no bearing, K-Ar dating is useless; or if it was dating by length of stalagmites and stalactites. But when carbon dates for Neanderthals are consistently c. 40,000 BP or older, and when CMI has more than once pointed out that carbon dates like "50,000 to 20,000" or "45,000 to 35,000" BP are likely to be Flood date, I think that Neanderthals being a pre-Flood race is at least a distinct option.

As to Cro-Magnon population of Europe, it is genetically identical to the modern European one, so it must be post-Flood (it is especially close to what a century ago anthropologists would have called Nordic and Westic race types of Europe). But post-Babel?

That would depend on how long it was between Flood and dispersion of nations after Babel.

In Masoretic and King James one would be stuck with Babel c. 101 after Flood, at birth of Peleg according to those genealogies.

Vulgate agrees with Masoretic here, and is the basis for Douay Rheims, which is probably why Father Haydock choose Ussher's chronology to accompany the DR text in the commented Bible of 1859. However, Roman Martyrology disagrees with Vulgate, using LXX filtered by Sextus Africanus, possibly, and by St Jerome.

Now, here is DR:

Genesis 11:[10] These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.

[11] And Sem lived after he begot Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. [12] And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Sale. [13] And Arphaxad lived after he begot Sale, three hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters. [14] Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. [15] And Sale lived after he begot Heber, four hundred and three years; and begot sons and daughters.

[16] And Heber lived thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg.

Flood
Arphaxad + 2
Sale + 35
Heber + 30
Phaleg + 34

Phaleg or Peleg born 2, 37, 67, 101 years after Flood. Most would even say he got his name after the final dispersion, and so the Tower of Babel project would have been going on a bit before his birth in 101 after Flood, when God would have ended it.

To squeeze in all of Upper Palaeolithic into the 101 years between Flood and Babel would be impossible. To put it before Flood is impossible due to Cro-Magnon genetics. So, Upper Palaeolithic or at least some of it comes "after Babel". And of course, some would add Mid or Lower Palaeolithic, with Neanderthals for good measure.

Well, let's look at that theory a bit.

Genesis 11: [17] And Heber lived after he begot Phaleg, four hundred and thirty years: and begot sons and daughters. [18] Phaleg also lived thirty years, and begot Reu. [19] And Phaleg lived after he begot Reu, two hundred and nine years, and begot sons and daughters. [20] And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Sarug.

[21] And Reu lived after he begot Sarug, two hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. [22] And Sarug lived thirty years, and begot Nachor. [23] And Sarug lived after he begot Nachor, two hundred years: and begot sons and daughters. [24] And Nachor lived nine and twenty years, and begot Thare. [25] And Nachor lived after he begot Thare, a hundred and nineteen years: and begot sons and daughters.

[26] And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. [27] And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. [28] And Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldees. [29] And Abram and Nachor married wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai: and the name of Nachor's wife, Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha, and father of Jescha. [30] And Sarai was barren, and had no children.

[31] And Thare took Abram, his son, and Lot the son of Aran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, the wife of Abram his son, and brought them out of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Chanaan: and they came as far as Haran, and dwelt there. [32] And the days of Thare were two hundred and five years, and he died in Haran.

Ur of the Chaldees could be either Urfa / Edessa in Easternmost Turkey (as some Jews and Muslims think, and perhaps Christians of the region find credible too) or Woolley's Ur. Or possibly Uruk. No, not quite if that is Biblical Erech.

Phaleg (as stand in for Babel)
Reu + 30
Sarug + 32
Nachor + 30
Thare + 29
Death of Thare + 205

So, after Babel project we add 30, 62, 92, 121, 326 years to when Abraham was dwelling in Haran after leaving Ur. If you take this as Urfa or Edessa, you could take Göbekli Tepe (GT in the following), carbon dated 9600 - 8600 BC.

This would mean squeezing carbon dates of 50,000 BP or at least 40,000 BP (after Neanderthals) reaching up to at earlist 9600 BC into 326 years.

Wait, sorry. Ur is the land of Aran's nativity (v. 28), who was brother of Abram. So:

Phaleg (as stand in for Babel)
Reu + 30
Sarug + 32
Nachor + 30
Thare + 29
Abram, Nachor, Aran + 70

... 121, 191.

1656 AM, Flood
0101 to Babel
0191 to Birth of Abram
1948 AM

4004 BC
1948 AM =
2052 BC

2052 BC
+191
2243 BC

9600 BC
2052 BC
7548 extra years, an initial carbon level in any sample of 40.129 pmc

38000 BC
02243 BC
35757 extra years, an initial carbon level of 1.323 pmc

Supposing in 2243 BC carbon level was that, and carbon 14 ceased forming, just continued decaying, we would in 191 years get to a level of ... well, what?

97.716 pmc is the level in a sample from 191 years ago. So, 97.716 % of 1.323 pmc would have been left in 2052 BC - purely theoretically, so far. That would be 1.29278268 pmc.

In 191 years, normally carbon in atmosphere stays c. 100 pmc, meaning the down to 97.716 pmc is compensated by new carbon to a level of 2.284 pmc.

If carbon 14 was forming at our rate, 1.29278268 pmc + 2.284 pmc = 3.57678268 pmc.

But the actual new carbon would be getting instead 40.129 pmc - 1.29278268 pmc (yes, this is why I did what would have seemed a queer assumption a few lines ago, this is how you calculate how much carbon 14 was formed): 38.83621731999999 pmc

38.83621731999999 pmc / 2.284 pmc = 17.00359777583187 times as fast. In medium.

One of my tables got that much fast a formation for C14 for first period after Deluge. I had to conclude that is feasible. It means the Cosmic radition, today a minor part of total background radiation most places, would then have been about as great as now the total background radiation in Princeton. It is feasible.***

If I had taken instead 48000 BC as equivalent for 2243 BC, the carbon rise would not have been much faster, since 97.716 % of ... 0.395 pmc (checking for 45757 instead of 35757 extra years) is not very much lower than 97.716 % of already mentioned 1.323 pmc.

But it is more feasible to put such a fast carbon rise closer to the Flood, and also to space out things so that you don't even get such a fast carbon raise, as I have done in more recent tables.

It is also questionable if birth of Abraham, Nachor and Aran in Ur should at all be dated to GT.

Could Abraham have been born in pre-pottery Neolithic A (early GT) and at about 80 have been contemporary to En-Geddi's chalcolithic?

For one thing, supposing birth of Aran occurs in early GT, which is dated 9600, GT would still have had to be around when they left for Haran, as Ur is considered the land of his nativity, not another Ur.

So, perhaps wiser to say Abraham was born in Woolley's Ur. Or in Urfa, close by ruined GT. But this means more recent datings for 2052 BC and fewer extra years and therefore an even steeper carbon rise.

If, instead, GT is the city with the Tower of Babel and we use LXX chronology, we get 529 years between Flood and Babel, which would be quite enough to accomodate Upper Palaeolithic and starts of Neolithic.

Then there are more years after Babel for Abraham to be born in, and placing his 80 or so year old appearance in Genesis 14 along with Chalcolithic Amorrheans in Asasonthamar / later known as En-Geddi is fairly feasible.

That is one reason why I prefer LXX chronology and placing Neanderthals pre-Flood, not just pre-Babel.

Why did God not wipe Neanderthals totally off the face of the earth (Genesis 6:7) if God wanted to leave no traces even of pre-Flood humanity?

Well if God were judging humanity for certain things happening in New York and Paris and Tell Aviv (yes, I was caught in Paris during the Pride Parade this year, because I didn't see it coming, usually I leave Paris for a few miles out for the days it lasts), perhaps some First Nations, whether Canada or Greenland, whether US or Australia, would perhaps get an easier judgement.

And if Neanderthals were contemporary with Nodians, their shelters do not allow us to conclude they were Nodians engaged in city life. You see where I am heading?

Also, Genesis 6:7 does not specify tracelessness of all pre-Flood men.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Joel and Ezra
13.VII.2017

Credit and notes:

Credit to this carbon calculator:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
short link = http://ppt.li/3m8

Credit to Osgood for Chalcolithic of En-Geddi involved in Genesis 14:

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood
http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham

Notes:

* Neandertal-Human Hybrids:
Old earth apologetics gone real bad
by Fred Butler Published: 19 July 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/neandertal-human-hybrids-hugh-ross

** Note one on previous gives Colin Barras, Neanderthals built mystery underground circles 175,000 years ago, 25 May 2016, newscientist.com.

*** Cosmic radiation today : world average 0.39 milliSieverts per year, and the 70 tons of C14 would in 191 years involve a decay and effective replacement of 1.5988 tons. In order to get instead 1.5988 * 17 = 27 tons in 191 years, we also need a radiation to have been 17*0.39 = 6.63 milliSieverts per year. And that is about the total background radiation at Princeton. But I am not sure it would be so to have Abraham leave GT even at 30 before carbon date 8600 BC (abandoning and presumably covering of GT) and at 80 be in chalcolithic of En-Geddi. You check, I have shown you how! (As an aside, the article claims the level has been 70 tons for 100,000 years in atmosphere, that is both not true and not checkable if it had been true./HGL)

What I Owe and Don't Owe Kent Hovind

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions? · What I Owe and Don't Owe Kent Hovind

I hope no one has presented me as plagiarising Kent Hovind.

For one thing, he has wavered copy-right, several times over said his material is not copy-righted, and encouraged to "chew the meat and spit the bones", take whatever one wants to and skip the rest.

This would mean, if I were repackaging Kent Hovind's YEC for Conservative Catholics, I would be within my rights - at least as long as I took the material from Dr Dino, his original pre-prison site on which those conditions applied.

Now, that is not what I am doing, or I would not be referring so much to him. Or to CMI.

I am not plagiarising, because I am going beyond and I am commenting on things.

I am also not simply a dupe of either him or them. If I were, what has their gain been, I have sent them no money? If my blogs are not all that widely read ... but you might want to check out this :

New blog on the kid : Russian Readers Leading, Again!
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/07/russian-readers-leading-again.html

Sixth of July, my viewer stats over 37 blogs were soaring and 7th, I had to make an update saying they had dropped, the Russian readers had scurried away like woodlice when a door opens and there is light. So ... if my blogs are not all that widely read, I am not giving them very many readers either.

But more, I contradict them on some items (being a Geocentric which neither he is nor they are, being a Catholic, which neither he is nor they are, using a LXX based Chronology, which neither he does nor they at least usually do, though they note it in connection with question what the outer limits of a Biblical chronology are). And I find arguments which either they had not found or not examined as greatly. Or in same ways as I.

One great example is of course carbon dating. Some on the RATE project for ICR have been studying this (Baumgartner), some on CMI (or one at least), Tas Walker, has done work closely parallel to mine, and we are both recent pioneers on that work.

Here is a post in which I give both Tas' and my own results, in parallel:

Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/05/tas-walker-and-myself-on-c14-glacial.html

And I continue on the trace I am pursuing in the following posts of that series. Wishing him the best on his pursuit, which is parallel but not identical. He is directly trying to tie glacial maximum to either Job or such or such a time before Job, and I am only indirectly concerned with Younger Dryas insofar as its geological and partly carbon dated era coincide with the archaeological and partly carbon dated era of Göbekli Tepe, which I am identifying with the city in the plains of Shinar (yes, GT and Edessa / Venerable Urfa are both in plains rather than clear mountain land, yes, they are both East of Euphrates ... and not very far East of it ... and West of Tigris, yes, the Bible says they ceased to build the City and GT was not just abandoned, but covered over with sand ... finally, it's great for a rocket ramp, or might seem so to an amateur, and Biblical description of tower would fit a rocketry project. Not meaning the rocketry would have worked properly if there had been an attempted take off then, but meaning that could have been what they projected and what God finally allowed their successors in Cape Canaveral and Baykonoor.

Henry Makow wrong about OT
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/henry-makow-wrong-about-ot.html

Also, contrary to both Ziggurat of Ur (Woolley's Ur, not Urfa) and Nebuchadnezzar II's tower project recently discovered (and clearly misidentified with Tower of Babel*), GT and older have no traces of written languages being diverse, or other than Hebrew, which St Augustine considers the first language (see De Civitate Dei, book 16, chapter 11).

As I mentioned St Augustine, in chapter 4 of same book, he identifies Babel with Babylon. This would rule out GT, unless we take the identification to be a moral and political one rather than a strictly geographic one. Babylon is the original Babel (in Göbekli Tepe) like Rome is Teucrian or Dardanian, via Aeneas continuing those parts of Trojan region there. Babylon is the original Babel, because it has the same leadership as the original Babel, moving from GT to Edessa, from Edessa or Urfa to Ur, from Ur to Babylon which is on Euphrates itself.

But at Babylon on Euphrates we have not found any trace of a city old enough to have been speaking unwritten Hebrew rather than cuneiform Sumerian and Akkadian (which latter language is related to Hebrew).

My next co-temporality has nothing to do with geology at all, but takes a cue from Chalcolithic En Geddi being contemporary with Genesis 14 in a time when Abraham would have been around 80 years.

My source for Chalcolithic En-Geddi being mentioned in Genesis 14:

The Times of Abraham
By Dr A.J.M. Osgood
http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham

He therein refers to two passages of the Bible in this beautiful passage:

As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked ‘the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar’. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea.

The passage in Genesis chapter 14, therefore, allows us to conclude that in the days of Abraham there was a civilization in En-gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea, a civilization of Amorites, and that these were defeated by Chedorlaomer in his passage northward.

And if he had been into recalibrating rather than ditching carbon dating, he would have been doing my work for me, but since he is into ditching rather than recalibrating, it is I who am drawing out conclusions for carbon dating:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/01/osgood-and-dating-of-abraham-and-i-am.html

But the other table I mentioned in that one, the Fibonacci table, is in this French post:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
Saturday, 31 October 2015
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

Which is part of a series, which I began after being challenged on the more general creationist idea of a carbon rise.

I had that idea back at age 12 from a book by Edgar Andrews called From Nothing to Nature, I used a page on Dr Dino several times over as reference (when challenged for one) for this idea, and both Andrews and Hovind only went as far as to say that things carbon dated to beyond Biblical chronology lived in an atmosphere with less carbon 14.

Now, this idea was challenged by some students who had offered me both beer and conversation on campus ground after closing of the University Library in Nanterre.

They said such a rise in carbon 14 could only happen by a nuke disaster or so much solar activity that only spiders would survive the radiation.

I went on to show the carbon rise would indeed involve carbon 14 forming quicker than now, but the cosmic rays would be on a scale of within 20 times present cosmic radiation - which is more then European total background radiation, closer to to that in Princeton.

This means I refuted these students - who never showed up again to converse on the subject. Probably whatever professor they had been citing still goes on to say the creationist idea of a carbon rise contradicts life going on, even if I refuted it back then in 2015.

Incidentally, in doing so, I used LXX chronology, that of the Roman Martyrology. I am less sure if Kent Hovind's chronology (based on Masoretic or King James) could also do the trick. But that is up to him.

In either case, having gone so far beyond what Kent Hovind could give, one can at least no longer consider me his dupe anymore than one could consider me as plagiarising him when I used the general idea of a carbon rise (and used Dr Dino as explicit reference, giving the due credits) in debate after debate.

I most certainly do owe him thanks for many good times. Sometimes I have been so lonely, that hearing him in a lesson or debate on youtube has been keeping me company as if in prison.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Pius I
11.VII.2017

* Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Misidentification of Tower of Babel
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/06/on-misidentification-of-tower-of-babel.html

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions? · What I Owe and Don't Owe Kent Hovind

I'll actually give you one (I am not sure he is aware of the Talmudic connection himself) off hand. He and Talmudic Jews (or at least one tract in the Talmud) seem to agree Christians should not be given wine.

However, it is more crypto-Talmudic, hidden to himself probably too, than openly Talmudic. Because he and the Talmud differ in why.

Talmud says "because they commit idolatry with it" - probably referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they as well as some Protestants (possibly including Hovind) consider as an act of idolatry, while his own words are "there is a curse on those who give wine to someone", forgetting to mention that this curse only applies if the intent is seeing one's brother (not enemy) drunk and have fun at him (not with him, drinking oneself).

But if you mean he has a Talmudic position in saying the Flood was really global, there are two answers.

• the "Talmudic position" par excellence, which neither I nor Kent Hovind share is that the Flood was nearly global, with Holy Land excepted, just like there was an exception to the sea for the Israelites through the Red Sea;
• the Talmud certainly says somewhere (I haven't studied it, but the opposite would surprise me greatly) that God created Heaven and Earth. Now, to a man like Dominic Venner this makes it a Talmudic or Jewish error : and to him Christianity itself is a Jewish error. But to a Christian, it cannot be a Talmudic error to believe God created Heaven and Earth, because that is in the First Article of the Creed (Apostolic or Nicene). The point is not to contradict the Talmud on everything it says, but to contradict it where it is wrong (like when saying Christians should not be given wine or commit idolatry with wine), and to identify this by its contradicting traditional Christian sources (like a comment on V commandment forbidding drunkenness, but not moderate drinking - drunkenness is still a sin, even if shared drunkenness is not under the curse Kent Hovind spoke about, or like a tradition saying Holy Mass is the supreme sacrifice now present on Earth to the True God as He wants it).

So, if by Talmudic positions of Kent Hovind some guy at St Nicolas du Chardonnet was referring to his being Young Earth Creationist, that guy should quit reading Dominic Venner and start reading Catechism of Pope St Pius X (which is explicitly Young Earth Creationist and which at least is compatible with Geocentrism).

To those unfamiliar with French conditions : Dominic Venner is a recently suicided, self killed, essayist, on the right wing but also on the antichristian wing of the right wing, the re-paganisers. He committed his suicide in Notre Dame, and did this as a protest against mainstream Catholics promoting immigration. In Notre Dame and elsewhere Catholics have been praying for his soul.

I find it very bad that Femen has committed a sacrilegious act in Notre Dame. But it did not involve suicide, so each of them are still able to repent. I find it very bad style when certain right wing Christians are all flustered with indignation over the sacrilege of Femen, but very ready to excuse the even worse sacrilege of Dominic Venner and adhere to his positions.

To those unfamiliar with both French and Fraternity of St Pius X conditions : St Nicolas du Chardonnet is the main poster child church for the Fraternity of St Pius X in France, since they took over the Church using some force against a mainstream Catholic curate. They and mainstream Catholics are divided over who was committing a sacrilege, he for saying Novus Ordo mass or they for removing him. They are right wing, and some of them seem to have great sympathy for Dominic Venner. But I think it would be healthiest for their souls if they read - some of them - less Dominic Venner and more of the patron Saint of their fraternity : Pope St Pius X.

To any Young Earth Creationist ear, the decisions of the Pontifical Bible commission from his time (he died when World War I broke out) are music.

Latin text		My own translation.
I. Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?		Whether the various exegetical systems, which have been thought out to exclude the literal historic sense of the three first chapters of Genesis and have been promoted with the pretense of science, are supported by any solid fundament?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
II. Utrum non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum veteris tum novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit, praeditta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, dottrinae monotheisticae accommodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates incultandas proposita; vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas?		Whether, not withstanding the genius of form of the Genesis book being historic, the particular three first chapters among themselves and connected to following chapters, [notwithstanding] multiple testimony from Scripture of both old and new Testament, the near unanimous sentence and traditional sense of the holy Fathers, which transmitted also by the Israelite people, the Church has always held, it can be taught that the forementioned three chapters of Genesis contain not narrations of things really come to pass, which therefore respond to objective reality and historic truth; but either a fable fetched from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and by the sacred author, after he expurgated all error of polytheism, accomadated to the monotheistic doctrine; or allegories and symbols devoid of fundament in objective reality, under guise of history proposed to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or at last to be read partly historic and partly fictions composed freely for edification and instruction of souls?
Resp. Negative ad utramque partem.		Nope and nope.
[They forgot the third part, probably too tired of the first two!]
III. Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter caetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas; originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis; praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio?		Whether especially one can call in doubt the historical literal sense, where it is a question of facts in these chapters which concern the foundations of the Christian religion: such as are, among others, the universal creation of all things done by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of first women from first man; the unity of the human kind; the original felicity of the first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precent given by God to man to probe his obedience; the transgression of the divine precent, with the devil persuading in the guise of a serpent; the dejection of the first parents from that primeval state of innocence; not to mention the promise of the One coming to Repair?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
IV. Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat, salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam?		Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, and not transmitted anything of certain and definite, it is licit, saving the judgement of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, each follow and keep the sentence which he prudently has probed?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
[Great example : same day in Genesis 2:17 : you are free to say they began to die same day, they died from grace same day or they physically died "same day" as in same thousand years. All of which are true, but you can prefer which you like as the immediate meaning of the warning.]
V. Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice, usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere?		Whether each and all, namely both words and phrases, which in these foresaid chapters occur, always and necessarily must be accepted in the proper sense, so that it is never licit to step away from it, even when expressions themselves appear manifestly improper, either metaphoric or anthropomorphic, taken over, and either reason forbids to hold or necessity forces to dismiss the proper sense?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
[You are not forced to say that "day" is literally one 24 hour day both in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:4, and some might find it unduly anthropomorphic to think God appeared in Eden in a theophany and gave Adam life via a kind of CPR, which I do not find impossible.]
VI. Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorumdem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit?		Whether, presupposing the literal and historic sense, of more than one place in the chapters, the allegoric and prophetic interpretation, foreshing the example of the holy Fathers and of Church herself, can be used wisely and usefully?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
VII. Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspettabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere; sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas?		Whether, given that in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the intention of the sacred author to teach the intimate constitution and order of the visible things of creation in a scientific manner; but rather to give his people a popular notion, as through these times the common speech imported, accomodated to the senses and to the understanding of men, it is in interpreting of these always and scrupulously to investigate about the propriety of scientific terminology?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
VIII. Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom (dies), sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?		Whether in that denomination and distinction of the six days, of which in Genesis chapter one, the word Yom (day) can be taken, either in proper sense for a natural day, or in improper sense, for some space of time, and that there is allowable for exegetes freely to differ about suchlike question?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.

The Latin version, which I quoted by copypaste and linked to, was signed by the consulters Fulcranus Vigouroux, P.S.S. and Laurentius Janssens, O.S.B. on the 30th June 1909. O.S.B. means Lawrence Janssens was a Benedictine monk, and - I looked it up - the letters P. S. S. mean that Fulcran Vigouroux was a Sulpician Father (an order with a connection to the Church Saint Sulpice in precisely Paris!)

So, I would greatly advice parishioners of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (where I was a parishioner when both they and I accepted "Benedict XVI" as Pope, a man who contradicted above) to not consider Kent Hovind as being Talmudic in the very act of being Young Earth Creationist. Or for that matter, to consider him as the one and sole example of Young Earth Creationism in the English language sphere.

Today one Australian pioneer is celebrating his look back on his carreer or beginning of it:

Creation pioneer looks back
Editors for Creation magazine interview our magazine's founder, Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/carl-wieland-creation-pioneer

While Kent Hovind is a great speaker and debater and a good amateur scientist, and one very well known Creationist to those outside the movement, I would say communities like Creation Ministries International and Institute of Creation Research are more consultable on given questions about how the account not just of first 3, but of all first 11 chapters is inerrant and that both historically and scientifically (though not flawlessly worded in scientific terminology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven Martyr Brothers
Sons of St. Felicitas*
10.VII.2017

* Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.

Feynman approach to YEC concepts?

Some of the guys who are debating me could use this method of approach:

Learn Faster with The Feynman Technique
Scott Young
https://youtu.be/FrNqSLPaZLc

Recommended concepts:

• carbon rise (if in the past carbon 14 level has risen to present, it means you get too long ago ages if you set N₀ at 100 instead of a real 80 pmc, 50 pmc, 25 pmc or at Flood close to 1 pmc : this is presuming carbon dating is physically correct on every point except carbon 14 levels in atmospheres of the past);
  
  
  
  
• Cretaceous biotope (for a Flood geologist like myself the layer which yields Creataceous fossiles is contemporary, from Flood, usually, with one that yields Permian or Eocene ones : they were diverse biotopes during Flood and cross country overlaying of laminated or lithologically diversified strata is irrelevant to this);
  
  
• excess argon (key to too old potassium argon dates);
  
  
• original lead content (key problem for U-Pb and Th-Pb methods);
  
  
• lab determination of halflives if very long ones (a possible second key problem for K-Ar, U-Pb and Th-Pb methods, but not for C14).
  
  
• how Chromosome numbers change (key problem with all mammals or placental mammals sharing a common ancestor).
  
  
• how stellar parallax depends on heliocentric assumptions (and is the first step beyond solar system in cosmic distance ladder, while solar system distances are no problem for a young universe, we are not even a light day from Pluto)
  
  
• history trumps reconstruction (what the diverse probabilities of a history and a reconstruction is of being right.)

Good luck with your creationist studies!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bagnolet
5th Sunday after Pentecost
9.VII.2017

PS : Illustration already used in this post in French and coming from a page on Regina University no longer visible at least right now, see credits on my blog post!

Let's take the other diagram:



Insert N₀ = 50 instead of = 100 ... bbl ... back again: I get 1416 years, which is way off.

I was in fact thinking of 8600 BC rather than BP, and 9600 - 8600 BC is a span when on my view carbon level passed from under to over 50 pmc. So, say 75 instead of 100. I now get 3026 BP, which is about 1000 BC. Also off. 6000 BC is very early Uruk, can't be about times of King David, more like times of Abraham. Say 85 pmc. 3523 BP, c. 1500 BC, times of Exodus, also too recent. Say 90. No, this would land the item in times of Joseph in Egypt, 3750 BP. AND I see I have been doing a fault, multiplying instead of dividing by -0.693. Again : 75 pmc. So, now I come to 6301 BP, c. 4300 BC, which is pre-Flood. But early Uruk is arguably post-Flood and post-Babel. So, with 50 pmc it is 2949 BP or 950 BC, which is too recent. Things which have 35 pmc left lived in an atmosphere which had between 50 and 75 pmc./HGL