General Intro to my Carbon Tables

Intro : General Intro to my Carbon Tables (with other parts in links in comments) · Conclusion : Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections · How Accurate are Chronogenealogies Anyway? Conclusion continued. · Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion · Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt · Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method

I have been challenged that I do not know the basics of carbon dating, because if I did, I would not "manipulate" carbon dates. The response has three parts : yes, I do know the basics of carbon dating, no, I do not dishonestly manipulate carbon 14 levels measured, no, it is not intellectually dishonest to manipulate the non-measured and presumed part of their equation and see if the results match Biblical chronology better than with their presuppositions. Now I will flesh each part out.

Knowing the halflife of carbon 14 to be 5730 years, we can calculate what percentage of original "carbon content" - this does not refer to overall content of substance carbon, but to the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, in this context - will appear after hw many years. For instance, after 5730 years half of original carbon content is left, after twice that time, 25 %, after three times (three, not four) 12.5 % - and all this of the original carbon content in the sample. The atmosphere as a whole is not "a sample": while carbon 14 decays in it as in any sample, it is replaced by production of new carbon 14, a process taking place in the atmosphere, specifically in high levels. Today this new production seems to balance the decay. If we go the other way, we can halve the 5730 years into half (2865 years), third (1910 years), quarter (1432 years). Here we cannot reverse the factor of two by multiplying instead of dividing, if we multiply 50 % with two, we get one and the sample is recent, there has been no decay. This means it has been recently closed off from the stable level of the atmosphere. Instead we are doing roots : square root for half the time, cubic roots for third of time, fourth roots or square roots of square roots for quarter of the time.

We check this principle with square roots for half the time.

At 2865 years after a sample is closed off from atmosphere, we will then have the carbon 14 ratio at the square root of a half of original sample, that is at 70.7 %. After 2865 years, we will have 70.7 % of that, which is 50 %. This can be generalised, so that every halving of the time considered will correspond to a square rooting of final ratio to original carbon content. (50, 70.7, 84.1, 91.7 ....).

Two provisos, to bar off misunderstanding:

• 1) when quantity of carbon 14 halves, its ratio to carbon 12 - which is what you actually measure - also halves. This would be so even with nearly equal ratios, if carbon 14 decays to nitrogen 14 or to nothing (the latter is not an option), but not if it decayse to carbon 12 (I think I heard that version back when I was young). If you start off with 14:12 at 2:2, decaying to half would substantially augment the other side, you'd have 1:3. But, 14:12 ratio is more like 1:1,000,000,000,000 - so even if carbon 14 decays to carbon 12, even a substantial decay of it will not noticeably augment carbon 12 (but the theory today is, seemingly, it decays to nitrogen 14, anyway). Hence decay of carbon 14 content equals decay of carbon 14 : carbon12 ratio.
  
  
• 2) The decay affects per se original content of sample - not the level in today's atmosphere. Per accidens, the original content could be equal to today's atmosphere's and then you insert that level as original. But this would not be so if one had some reason to believe original content was lower than in today's atmosphere. Unlike atmospheric content, the original one is not left to measure, since it could only be left if there had been no decay.

We can add a third one : atmospheric carbon ratio is, as any sample, affected by decay, and unlike closed samples, by production of new carbon 14. But it will also rise fairly quickly if unchanged production ratio is couples with reduced levels of overall carbon content - or fall, not by decay, since it is balanced by new production, but by adding fossil carbon, by burning fuels and emitting carbon dioxide with old carbon.

Now, the thing is, square rooting the post-decay to original ratio as you halve the time periods will get you the ratios for periods of time in which we can verify both stability of atmospheric carbon ratio (or relative such, minor fluctuations) and correct halflife, by comparing carbon dates to very well known and verified historic ones.

This is how carbon dating works at its most basic. Now when Göbekli Tepe is dated to between 9600 BC and 8600 BC, I do severly reduce these ages. According to St. Jerome's chronology, generally LXX, but 128 years less between Flood and Abraham than standard LXX or Syncellus, I presume that Peleg is born 401 after Flood, while according to Syncellus, he is born 529 after Flood. In either case, I take Babel as beginning five years later than his birth and as lasting 40 years after its beginning. And as identic to Göbekli Tepe. Perhaps I should change that approach, look at Harran in Syria instead of Göbekli Tepe or suppose Peleg born after confusion of tongues rather than before beginning of Babel ... but for Harran, I don't have the carbon dates, don't know if there are any yet. Anyway, this means that, as St Jerome has Flood in 2957 BC and Syncellus in 3358 BC, we can start comparing BC dates per carbon, Syncellus and St. Jerome.

		Carbon		Syncellus		St. Jerome
begins		9600 BC		2824 BC		2551 BC
ends		8600 BC		2784 BC		2511 BC

Clearly, I am in some sense "manipulating carbon dates" if I wish to correct 9600 BC to 2824 or 2551 BC - hence the objection to my proceedings. Some say, if I understood the carbon dating, I would not thus manipulate the carbon dates.

Now, if 2 halflives are 11,460 years ago, this 9460 BC is somewhat after the beginning and definitely before the end of Göbekli Tepe. This would mean 25 % of present carbon ratio, 25 pcm, or, 25 percent of original content, presumed to have been roughly equal to today's atmosphere, presumed to have been c. 100 pcm.

Now, here is the response about my honesty : I very much do not manipulate the c. 25 pcm value which is actually measured. I very much respect and endorse the 25 pcm for remains from Göbekli Tepe, near beginning, somewhat lower at actual beginning, higher at end.

What I do manipulate, and have a right to manipulate as long as not proven wrong, is the interpretation of the presently measured 25 pmc. I do not endorse or respect that the carbon level back then - a thing we cannot measure - was c. 100 pmc. Therefore neither to conclude from a presumed original 100 pmc that the present 25 pmc represent two halflives of decay.

Instead, I look at a fairly good fit in Biblical history, supposing Göbekli Tepe = Babel (though I might look at Harran later on), and I conclude from the 25 pmc that back in those times the carbon level was somewhat under 50 pmc. It was also rising, since there are fewer extra years at end or top layers than at beginning or bottom layers.

24.58 pmc		27.741 pmc
(measured now)
9600		8600
2551		2511
7049		6089
42.626 pmc		47.875 pmc
(presumed back then)
9600		8600
2824		2784
6776		5816
44.057 pmc		49.483 pmc
(presumed back then)

Whichever Biblical chronology I compare it with, both beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe have more than 5730 extra years.There are also fewer extra years at end than at beginning. This interpretation is consistent with a general Creationist theory of carbon dating (popularised by Edgar Andrews and Kent Hovind, no doubt Morris before them) which says the obtained carbon dates are skewed because of coming from times when carbon level, i e carbon 14 ratio, was lower in the atmosphere. It is consistent with its implication that the carbon ratio was long rising in level (some Creationists overdid it to "still is rising", see below). It is consistent with Abraham being 80 years old at Early Dynastic Egypt:

2015 BC		2288 BC
80		80
1935 BC		2208 BC
3200 BC		3200 BC
1935 BC		2208 BC
1265		992
85.811 pmc		88.692 pmc
(presumed back then)

Meaning that in Abraham's time the pmc was no longer less than 50, but between 80 and 90.

It is consistent with Flood, carbon datable as per fossils of dinos (many of them, some would be post-Flood), or as per disappearance of Neanderthals being dated to c. 40,000 BP. This means the carbon level was drastically lower at Flood than later at Göbekli Tepe or Babel.

And all this "manipulation of dates" is, here is the point:

• A) without any manipulation distorting real measured raw data of carbon dating;
• B) without contesting the halflife is and was all the way 5730 years (perhaps except during some nuke war before Flood?);
• C) without invalidating more recent carbon dates which really are checkable against really well known history, since carbon level rose to 100 pmc since Abraham's time, as I presume.

Now, you can ask, what is the difference whether I manipulate raw data or manipulate a supposition, I am still manipulating a result, right?

Let's do some logic.

If (A and B) then not C.
If (A and C) then not B.
If (B and C) then not A.

These are all the same implication, these are all equivalent to:

Not (A, B and C).

You can pick premiss pair (A and B) as true and conclude "therefore not C". You can pick premiss pair (A and C) as true and conclude "therefore not B". And you can pick premiss pair (B and C) as true and conclude "therefore not A". You could also admit fewer premisses, but that does not give a forceful conclusion.

Now, let A mean the composite "carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years and objects from Göbekli Tepe were found with 25 pmc". Let B mean "objects from Göbekli Tepe (as younger ones) had an original carbon content of 100 pmc or little different". Let C mean "objects from Göbekli Tepe fit the Biblical Chonology (as do other objects)".

The Uniformitarian concludes like this : "carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years and things with 25 pmc were found at Göbekli Tepe, they had an original 100 pmc, therefore they are two halflives old and do not fit the Biblical timeline."

The usual Creationist, me at least, concludes like this : "carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years and things with 25 pmc were found at Göbekli Tepe, they fit the Biblical timeline which is restricted to less than a halflife after the Flood, therefore they had less than 50 pmc from start."

The "conspiracy theorist" concludes like this (on some level) : "objects from Göbekli Tepe had 100 pmc from start and do fit the Biblical timeline, therefore either carbon 14 has a shorter halflife than 5730 years or objects from Göbekli Tepe contained more than 25 pmc when found." Note, if such a conspiracy theorist even exists and is not a simple strawman.

Note, one version of Creationist who is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist also follows some version of this, since concluding halflives were shorter and speed of light faster in the past. Note, speed of light has not been ruled out as a factor affecting decay speed or in other words halflife. This is not my option. It is Barry Setterfield's.

But denying A, "carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years and objects from Göbekli Tepe were found having 25 pmc", that is as close as any comes to denying observed data.

Now, the different tables, in various older posts, I may be adding younger too, are about what carbon dates I am taking into account for calibration by what coupling with Biblical chronology. There was a time when I was only doing a general overview, then found it impossible since the "straight graph" from carbon date 40 000 BP at 2957 BC to 500 BC at 500 BC would have put Abraham at Göbekli Tepe and Moses at early dynastic. I tried a few ways of curving the graph, settling for a curve involving Fibonacci sequence in decreasing steps of carbon build up. I started seeing Abraham as 80 years at c. 3200 / 3400 BC in carbon dates (Chalcolithic in En-Geddi, H/T to Osgood about Genesis 14 coupling with II Paralipomenon 20:2 for identifying the older name of En-Geddi as found in Genesis 14).

I became aware of Göbekli Tepe being a fairly good candidate for Babel, or Djoser, carbon dated to 2600 BC, for Joseph's Pharao, I took at look at two different levels of Jericho as candidates for 1470 BC when Joshua took it. And I compared other chronologies than St Jerome's which still is my favourite, involved in Roman Martyrology reading for Christmas Matins, night to 25th December. So, there are comparisons with Syncellus' chronology as well as somewhat fewer ones to Ussher's. This is the reason for my changing values in the tables and making many different posts.

This should serve as general intro to all of them.

One more. I not only found that the carbon level must have been stable during the period we can check against known history with well attested chronology (at least 2000, probably 2500 or more years), but also that in order to get there from a very low level at Flood, carbon 14 must have been produced several times faster in the past before the stable level.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Montparnasse
St Catherine of Siena
30.IV.2018

For Sea-Farers ....

Baraminological Note · For Sea-Farers .... · Rolling Period of Ark? · Ark : empty weight and freighted weight, number of couples on the Ark. · Small Tidbits on Ark, Especially Mathematical

I have been looking at a book about "stability and trim", editor William E. George.*

Transverse Metacentric is an imagined but localisable point in the middle of the vertical axis, affecting the radius of a circle segment in which smaller variations of centre of buoyancy occur, around the longitudinal axis.

It is calculated as BM (radius of B, centre of buoyancy, around/below M, Transverse Metacentre) = I/V.

I is calculated in relevance to water plane as Length * Breadth³ / 12, for a rectangular water plane, which Ark arguably had.

Assume 1 cubit = 2 feet.

300 cubits * (50 cubits) ³ / 12 =

600 ft * (100 ft) ³ / 12 = 50 000 000 ft⁴.

V involves Length, Breadth and Draft, and I assume the latter is 15 cubits = 30 feet.

600*100*30 = 1 800 000 ft³.

Now, I/V = BM = 27.777 ft. Or 27 ft 9' 4".

If Draft was 30 feet, then centre of buoyancy "initial" (before any rolling) would be 15 feet above "keel" (if any), meaning, Height of Transverse Metacentre (KM) is 15 ft + 27 ft 9' 4" = 42 ft 9' and 4".

So much for transverse stability.

Now, longitudinal hull strength ... how do we avoid hull breaks ...

First, how do we not avoid hull breaks? A ship progresses through waves and especially waves that are the length of the ship are a strain on the trim. When waves have crests near two ends of ship, a sagging tendency if there in structure is enforced. When one wave has the crest midship, a hogging tendency is enforced. The periodic enforcing of either a sagging or a hogging one can case a break of hull.

Now, how long were waves in the Flood?

I would imagine, a very typical seascape during the Flood would have been long dunes.

If they were very much longer than 600 feet, like 1200 feet, ark would not have had to deal either with hogging or with sagging, even if progressing through the waves. But more importantly, it was arguably not even doing that. The main motion except rolling would have been swaying - moving with waves and having the length of the Ark confortably between two of them, so moving sideways.

Progress would have sunk the Ark, fortunately there was none.

Indeed, one Swedish dialect would translate progress as "framstega" - and in block letters and ASCII values, that adds up to 666.

But, there was no progress, no surge, for the Ark. No progress, no hull break, no sink.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Fidelis of Sigmaringen**
24.IV.2018

PS : I was out, I calculated that total weight of Ark with load when waterline was 15 cubits up was 50,970 metric tons. I took into account that there were three storeys on Ark, and considering foot tons and calculating for even distribution of weight over three storeys, I got it to a centre of gravitation of either 21.37 feet above keel/bottom, if lowest storey count as ten feet up, or if the foot tons are zero because the height is zero, 18 feet above bottom.

I also considered that lifting a ton in pulleys from its resting on floor of one storey to its hanging from its roof, twenty feet higher, ten cubits higher, would add twenty foot tons on that side. Note, with pulleys, even one man can lift a ton, especially if he only needs to lift it one inch.

And this would imply a possibility of leaning a floor (with all "ship", or if it has independent slant from that of whole Ark), when cleaning or food distribution can be facilitated by that.

Supposing the lowest floor counts as ten feet for weight position, and lifting is done at one side between second and third floor, the sides would then have a momentum of 594,150 foot tons on one, and 594,170 foot tons on other side - for all of Ark. Independent movement of a floor would add agility to occasional slanting and a floor could be secured to the side except when this is done./HGL

* Stability and Trim for the Ship's Officer, Third Edition, based on original edition by John La Dage and Lee Van Gemert, Third Edition, ed. by William E. George Cornell Maritime Press, last copyright 1983. ** Sevisii, in Rhaetia, sancti Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum Capuccinorum et Martyris; qui, illuc ad praedicandam catholicam fidem missus, ibidem, ab haereticis interemptus, martyrium consummavit; et a Benedicto Decimo quarto, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relatus est.

From Joseph to Jericho ... one of the ways

I was looking up one of the articles I used for carbon dating issues. I saw that the medium carbon date, averaged over different samples, for the Burial Boat of Sesostris III was to 3500 sth before present in Libby dates.

I converted it to Cambridge dates uncalibrated except as to halflife 1713 BC.

This is interesting, because in this article on CMI ...

Searching for Moses
by David Down
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

... Sesostris III is cited as probably dying just before Moses was born, since his successor Amenemhet III was probably the pharao ordering slaughter of infants, and since he probably survived to after Amemehmet IV / Moses had to flee after killing an overseer.

This would place Sesostris III's death at near 1590 BC, since Moses was 80 years in the Exodus 1510 BC - according to St Jerome. Djoser's coffin from 2600 BC is already tied to his being Joseph's Pharao, to 1700 BC sth.

I will add the Kenyon date 1550 BC as relevant to Biblical date 1470 BC fr Jericho - even while knowing some dispute relevance, preferring the 2200 BC walls ...

	Djoser		Sesostris III		Jericho		Distances
Real Date	1710 BC		1590 BC		1470 BC		1710 1590
Carbon Dated	2600 BC		1713 BC		1550 BC		1590 1470
Extra Years	890		223		80		0220 0120
Carbon level, pmC*	89.793		97.338		99.037

From Djoser to Sesostris III, if the Biblical alignments are correct, we would then have in 220 years a rise from 89.793 pmC to 97.338 pmC. How many % would the 89.793 pmC degrade? Same as the pmC in an object from 220 years ago. To 97.374 % of original. That is, of 89.793 pmC. With no new carbon one would have 87.435 pmC.

97.338 - 87.435 = 9.903 pmC points of carbon added to atmosphere.

Now, normal compensation for the decay would be ... 2.626 pmC points.

9.903 : 2.626 = 3.7711 times as fast addition of new carbon 14.

From Sesostris III to Jericho, same proviso, we would then have in 120 years a rise from 97.338 pmC to 99.037 pmC. How many % would the 97.338 pmC degrade? Same as in pmC of objects 120 years old, 98.559 % of original. That is, in this case, of not 100 but 97.338 pmC, to 95.935 pmC.

99.037 - 95.935 = 3.102 pmC points of carbon added.

Normal compensation would be 1.441

3.102 : 1.441 = 2.153 times as fast addition of new carbon 14.

This means, the addition of new carbon 14 would be slowing down. From near four times as fast as at present to a little more than twice as fast.

Let's project this another 120 years past Jericho, to 1350 BC.

99.037 pmC would degrade 98.559 % to 97.61 pmC. But add not 1.441 pmC points to 99.051, but rather instead 3.102 pmC points, you will get to 100.712 pmC ... objects will date to 60 years younger than they are.

On the other hand, as 2.153 times as fast is already slowing down compared to 3.7711 times as fast, one would expect even some further slowing down. If this holds, the real and carbon dates would be coinciding roughly since about 1400 BC.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy, Astrolabe
Sts Sulpicius and Servilian
20.IV.2018

* for pmC levels after so and so many years decay after an initial presumed 100 pmC, as always these days:

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

(These days = I previously used another carbon calculator, which is now down. Short link to this one = http://ppt.li/3m8)

Chromosome Split After All? What Does it Take?

Here is a chromosome. Parts of genome have been marked by lowercase letter a - m (counting j as i, after my Latin preference). Telomeres have been marked uppercase T, centromeres uppercase C.

T a b c d e f C g h i k l m T

Now, imagine it undergoes a single doubling event, we will italicise the area doubled, then show the result:

T a b c d e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

If you have a split directly after this, as P. Z. Myers imagined, you would have it either between the two centromeres or within one of them.

Between two telomeres eliminates genome in between, since genome unprotected by a mere at each end will shrivel:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T*

Result:

T a b c d e f C/T

T/C g h i k l m T

No parts of genome doubled, but two "incomplete", one armed chromosomes, like the Y-chromosome. It is called telocentric. Sometimes it is called "extreme acrocentric," but acrocentric is simply not having a longitudinal symmetry around centromere. Telocentric is having only two meres, like Y-chromosome, and one of them also functioning as centromere, i e connecting to centromere of other chromosome.

Let's imagine instead split goes through one of centromeres, both of the:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h i k l m T

One of the chromosomes is still telocentric. Part of genome is repeated between the telocentric and the normal one, namely g h, other part, namely e f, between the arms of the normal chromsosome.

This is the weakness I diagnosed in P. Z. Myers' imagination.* He had written it out like this:

a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m

And pretended to split like this:

a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m

But the problem is, this would really be:

T a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m T

And this means:

T a b c d e f C g h

e f C g h i k l m T

And he might hope instead:

T a b c d e f C g h TEN

TEN e f C g h i k l m T

Where TEN stands for Telomere Ex Nihilo. While telomeres and centromeres are from telomerase and centromerase, which is a special sequencing of DNA, distinct from genes, or perhaps two different ones, it is still DNA and needs to be compied from an original. Splits between meres are known from cancer studies, from onkology.

Now, imagine instead there is a second doubling event.

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h d e f C/T

T/C g h e f C g h i k l m T

e f three times, of which d e f twice

g h three times

Or if the second doubling event comprises both centromere exemplars:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C g h i d e f C g h e f C g h i k l m T

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h e f C g h i k l m T

e f three times, g h three times.

I have ignored versions which would leave one armed chromosomes as results. Here I'll be complete, a doubling across both centrmeres could be followed by a split through one of the three:

T a b c d e f C g h e f C/T

T/C g h i d e f C g h e f (C) g h i k l m T

Where (pretty standard) (C) = disactivated centromere.

Repeated sequences:

d e f twice and apart from that e f twice, g h i twice and apart from that g h twice.

This is the kind of scrambling of genome you should look for, when claiming a chromosome number increase by chromosome split.

For any creature, trisomy enlarged to tetrasomy is unlikely, since the trisomies are disabling and since tetrasomies are even more so, and recombining the fetal development to use two of the chromosomes for one and two for another part is unlikely and therefore ruled out. Tetraploidy is highly unlikely for mammals. It exists in plants and in amphibians, as does octoploidy. For mammals, chromosome split is the way up, and it is if not ruled out, totally, at least very hard.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Mouffetard
St Justin Martyr**
14.IV.2018

* His post is here:

Pharyngula : Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

It is possible he has rewritten it, so as to answer some of my objections ... will take a look ...

** Sancti Justini, Philosophi et Martyris, cuius memoria pridie hujus diei recensetur. / oops, too late ...