**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

First series, in French:

RépondreSupprimer1) Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, 2) Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications, 3) Multiples échecs de trouver une meilleure table que les précédentes, 4) Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir, 5) Encore un échec ... C14 ... et un double, probablement (mais je serais bref), 6) Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, 7) Un essai, décision de demander l'aide à un professeur de maths, 8) Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, 9) Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?, 10) Et les autres méthodes radioactives?

50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori

RépondreSupprimerThis second series in French is not trying to find a more correct table, but searching the limits beyond which the tables would be impossible, for St Jerome's chronology.

Series introducing Abraham at Chalcolithic of En-Geddi and Göbekli Tepe as Tower of Babel:

RépondreSupprimer1)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2)Creation vs. Evolution :Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...Redating "prehistory":

RépondreSupprimerLetter A of ex oriente, on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :I - preliminary to recalibrating, II - continuing the preliminary, III - explanation and results,

on Creation vs. Evolution :IV - ConclusionCreation vs. Evolution :1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser ·Great Bishop of Geneva! :4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating ·Creation vs. Evolution :5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? ·HGL's F.B. writings :9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice AgeWhere my dating of music differs from Habermehl's

RépondreSupprimerHistorians, Christians, Non-Christians

This Morning I Read it's 77 and 68 Years of Radiocarbon

RépondreSupprimer... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

RépondreSupprimer

RépondreSupprimerCreation vs. Evolution :1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe ·Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

RépondreSupprimerNeanderthal :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? · · Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders) · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)