[Calculation on paper commented on]

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

Would it work to have just the "extra years" involved in making the inbetween stages? Skipping the carbon 14 details?

I tried the time between 37 000 BC / 2957 BC and 9500 BC / 2607 BC. From these two points, I get these nine, by doing intermediates and averages, a process that I skip, showing instead only extra years and real years, and the carbon date I expect:

34043	31023	28003	24983	21963
02957	02913	02869	02825	02782
_________________________________________________
37000	33936	30872	27808	24645
18195	14428	10660	6893
02738	02695	02653	2607
_________________________________________________
20933	17123	13311	9500

How far is this from "the real thing"?

Creation vs. Evolution: The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html

The furthest off would be the middle one, since the extremes are identical, speaking of table I-II ...

2787 BC

22.154 pmC, so dated 15 237 BC

2770 BC

24.184 pmC, so dated 14 520 BC

Instead we would get 24645 BC as the carbon date with just averages, and no carbon 14 ones. 10 000 years off, more or less.

What about the other way round? 24 645 is where in real years in the fuller calculation?

2923 BC

5.767 pmC, so dated 26 523 BC

2906 BC

7.83 pmC, so dated 23 956 BC

Instead of 2787 we have between 2923 and 2906, 119 to 136 years further back.

Sometimes, the simpler and even clumsier method may get part of what a more subtle method misses.

With the correspondences in the table above, the human skeleta from 31 000 BC in the Mladec cave are no problem.

What would the next stop mean in terms of carbon 14?

2738 BC

11.069 pmC, so dated 20933 BC

What would that imply for the speeds before and after?

2957 - 2738 = 219 years, 97.386 % remain, 2.614 pmC normal replacement.

1.628 pmC * 97.386 / 100 = 1.585 pmC left
11.069 pmC - 1.585 pmC = 9.484 pmC replacement

9.484 pmC / 2.614 pmC = 3.628 times as fast

2738 - 2607 = 131 years, 98.428 % remain, 1.572 pmC normal replacement.

11.069 pmC * 98.428 / 100 = 10.895 pmC left
43.438 - 10.895 = 32.543 pmC replacement

32.543 / 1.572 = 20.702 times as fast

That's for a short period, starting in the Glacial Maximum, and ending in the Younger Dryas, a sign of the kind of radioactivity that could trigger that much cold (Glacial Maximum) or be triggered by that much Cosmic input (like the meteor of the Younger Dryas).

It may be noted that for a Masoretic timeline, the Ussher date for Babel's end* (when Peleg was 43 years!), there are 145 years to squeeze all of this in, and it is 25.672 times the speed of normal carbon 14 production, and I did that calculation back when I still thought the last layer of Göbekli Tepe was carbon date 8600 BC, in a recent article I saw 8000 BC, hence the revision above linked to. So, I am still, even with this revision, less radioactive in the post-Flood atmosphere (if you see what I mean) than those using the Ussher timeline.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Wednesday of Holy Week
27.III.2024

* Creation vs. Evolution: Do you Feel I Should Have Used the Ussher Timeline Instead?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/11/do-you-feel-i-should-have-used-ussher.html