CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI has a Long Ice Age in a Shortish Ussher Chronology · For my Part, I have a Shorter Ice Age in a Longer St Jerome Chronology · HGL's F.B. writings :Carbon Dating Debate

Why no mention of the Ice Age in the Bible?
Published: 16 June 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/why-no-mention-of-the-ice-age-in-the-bible

From articles on our website you will see that the Post-Flood Ice Age began immediately after the Flood when the ocean temperatures (and possible atmospheric volcanic dust) favoured the build-up of ice on the continents. This build-up continued, it is estimated, for 500 years until it reached peak ice, and then began to melt back over the following 200 years.

So, Ice age definitely ends, i e Younger Dryas, at 700 after Flood.

Usher makes Noe enter the ark on the 18th Dec. 1656.

(From Haydock comment Genesis 7:11)

4004 BC Creatio Mundi
1656 Flood Anno Mundi
2348 BC Flood
0700
1648 BC

Ice Age ending and therefore Younger Dryas at after Abraham ...

This is the third grand epoch of the world, about 2083, when God chooses one family to maintain the one faith, which he had all along supported.

Haydock on Genesis 12:1

4004
2083 Voc Abrahae Anno Mundi
1921 Voc Abrahae BC

I think this is very problematic, since carbon dates for Younger Dryas (to which carbon dating is applied) is 10600 BC to 9600 BC - the "thousand years" just before Göbekli Tepe and its "thousand years".

But Abraham, while alive 2015 BC to 1840 BC would have been c. 80 (Genesis 13 and 14, c. 1935 BC) at a time from which dated objects get carbon dates of c. 3000 BC, maybe a bit more even.

The atmosphere in the day of Abraham's 80th birthday or so would not both have had 85 - 86 pmc to explain the extra one thousand years and some century that Proto-Dynastic Egypt gets dated too old and at the same time be at less than 33 - 34 pmc to explain Younger Dryas as carbon dated (by that carbon content) 8952 years older than the 1648 year when it was really over, on the CMI view.

I am taking the view Abraham lived in an atmosphere with about 14 - 15 percent less carbon 14 than ours in Genesis 13 - 14.

If they see it through, in late patriarchal or Israel in Egypt times, the carbon content was 33.8 pmc, and from 1648 it rose from that to 100 pmc in c. 590 BC (destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar).

How fast would carbon have had to be produced for that to happen?

The 33.8 pmc would in 1000 years decay by 88.606 %. The normal restoration in that time is therefore 11.394 pmc points. Or, let's get to two times 500 years - 500 years leave 94.131 %, so restore 5.869 pmc points, twice that being 11.738 pmc points. Or four times 250 years, each time leaving 97.021 % and normal restoration being 2.979 pmc points, of which the quadruple is 11.916 pmc points. If we break it down to 16 times 62.5 years, 99.247 % means 0.753 pmc points restoration, of which 16 times is 12.048 pmc points - not much more than if you take all 1000 years as a whole.

Now, 100 - 33.8 = 66.2 pmc points. Divide that by 16, 4.1375 pmc points. In 62.5 years, you go from 33.8 pmc points to 37.9375.

33.8 pmc * 99.247 % = 33.545486 pmc.

37.9375 pmc - 33.545486 pmc = 4.392014 pmc points carbon 14 production. 4.392014 / 0.753 = 5.833 times faster than normal (I rounded). This is actually a lower ratio than if I tried to deal with all of the rise in one go.

33.8 pmc * 88.606 % = 29.948828 pmc points. 100 - 29.948828 = 70.051172 pmc points. 70.051172 / 11.394 = 6.148 times faster - except when you break it down, as above, it is only 5.833 times faster.

So, yes, a rise of 33.8 pmc to 100 pmc from 1648 to 648 BC is physically feasible. The problem comes with archaeology.

1648 BC		33.8 pmc + 8950 years
		1648 + 8950		"10598 BC"
1585 BC		37.9375 pmc + 8000 years
		1585 + 8000		"9585 BC"
1523 BC		42.075 pmc + 7150 years
		1523 + 7150		"8673 BC"
Exodus?
1460 BC		46.2125 pmc + 6400 years
		1460 + 6400		"7860 BC"
1398 BC		50.35 pmc + 5650 years
		1398 + 5650		"7048 BC"
1335 BC		54.4875 pmc + 5000 years
		1335 + 5000		"6335 BC"
1273 BC		58.625 pmc + 4400 years
		1273 + 4400		"5673 BC"
1210 BC		62.7625 pmc + 3850 years
		1210 + 3850		"5060 BC"
1148 BC		66.9 pmc + 3300 years
		1148 + 3300		"4448 BC"
1085 BC		71.0375 pmc + 2850 years
		1085 + 2850		"3935 BC"
1023 BC		75.175 pmc + 2350 years
		1023 + 2350		"3373 BC"
Solomon's Temple?
960 BC		79.3125 pmc + 1900 years
		960 + 1900		"2860 BC"
898 BC		83.45 pmc + 1500 years
		898 + 1500		"2398 BC"
835 BC		87.5875 pmc + 1100 years
		835 + 1100		"1935 BC"
773 BC		91.725 pmc + 710 years
		773 + 710		"1483 BC"
710 BC		95.8625 pmc + 350 years
		710 + 350		"1060 BC"
648 BC		100 pmc +/- 0 years
		648 +/- 0		648 BC !

Exodus carbon dated between abandoning of Göbekli Tepe and beginning of Çatal Höyük? King Solomon's Temple contemprary with carbon dated independent Sumeria, before there was a Babylon?

Er, no.

This is why putting the end of the ice age as late as CMI do is not really a good idea, especially if they also use Ussher's chronology.

No wonder that with this in mind, many Creationists are abandoning the idea of getting a reliable carbon table - as in carbon dates related to real and Biblical dates.

Obviously, this problem does not exist if you take my approach, use a longer time between Flood and Abraham (as per St Jerome's chronology where post-Flood patriarchs are like Samaritan version, or as per Syncellus' chronology, where you go full normal LXX), and end ice age, put Younger Dryas, before Babel, i e chronologically identify Göbekli Tepe and Babel.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IV Lord's Day after Pentecost
17.VI.2018