How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

New blog on the kid: Is there a Fifth Corner? · Creation vs. Evolution:How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

CMI and AiG are reputed to have a heat problem.

All tectonic stages from Pangaea to present configuration and all of this in the Flood.

I hold the original four corners of a presumable rectangle or trapezoid are still visible.

The Atlantic has been opened up, matter has been shoved up (mapreading as N = "up") to the Northern areas of Baffin Bay, i e those parts of Canada and all of Greenland.

The Indian Ocean has opened up when India was shoved up (making the Himalaya) and the Antarctic shoved down and Australia with Tasmania shoved East.

But, I don't hold that all of this was ready just after the Flood. No. The Himalayas were rising* to the degree of instability that the Siwalik hills only became inhabitable after Babel, several centuries after the Flood.** The same would be true for other movements, like South America moving away from Africa. The Pyrenees too have only post-Babel human remains, as they were also rising.

Obviously, the Flood did a lot of the job, but there was somemovement just after and it did for some centuries prevent spread of human habitation to some areas.

I think that is to be taken into account when assessing the tectonic movement of the Flood, and if correct, it solves the Heat Problem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, Martyrs
12.V.2026

Romae, via Ardeatina, sanctorum Martyrum Nerei et Achillei fratrum, qui primo cum Flavia Domitilla, cujus erant eunuchi, in insula Pontia longum pro Christo duxerunt exsilium; postmodum gravissimis verberibus attrectati sunt; deinde, cum a Minutio Rufo, viro Consulari, equuleo et flammis ad immolandum compellerentur, dicerentque se, a beato Petro Apostolo baptizatos, nulla ratione posse idolis immolare, capite caesi sunt. Horum sacrae reliquiae, simulque Flaviae Domitillae, ex Diaconia sancti Hadriani in antiquum eorum Titulum, ubi asservabantur olim reconditae, denuo restauratum, solemniter translatae sunt pridie hujus diei, jussu Clementis Papae Octavi; qui exinde hodierna celebrandum die indixit etiam festum ipsius beatae Domitillae Virginis, cujus passio Nonis hujus mensis recensetur.

* Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

** Gudrun Corvinus states in an addendum to her article:

The occupation of the Patu people then must have occurred before 7 000 B.P.

Let's say 5000 BC:

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2189—2166 BC, with Flood in 2958 BC = basically 800 years. Now, that was sloppy, since 7 000 BP is not usually calibrated to 5000 BC exactly. But if this means "cal BP" then that, being between 7050 and 6950 cal BP, is somewhere around 5050 BC. See the pdf on Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker's High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC and scroll down to Fig. 20 on p. 55.

From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Diodorus Siculus, 1st C BC, thought, from Egyptian sources that Menes ruled 5000 years earlier.

The Search for the Earliest Kings of Egypt
World of Antiquity | 7 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4TeOQrbVjk

Manetho and Abydos King List would agree Menes was the first human ruler.

Palermo King List, which is earlier, doesn't.

we do get the names of some king that immediately preceded the first dynasty: 7:54 Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh. These names do not match the names of gods 8:03 or demigods or spirits of the dead mentioned in Manetho or Diodorus.

If carbon dates associated with Narmer or Menes give c. 3100 BC, I have two solutions possible, for how Abraham met him somewhat before carbon dated 3500 BC:

• like Abraham, he lived long after their meeting, and so his grave has a much later carbon date:
  
  

  1936 BC

  82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC
  
  

  ...
  
  

  1816 BC

  Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

  1798 BC

  85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

  
  
  Doesn't function very well with my current calibration.
  
  
• Abraham actually didn't meet Narmer or Menes, but an earlier, pre-unification, king. Like one of Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh.

But either way, a historiography which was able to place Menes variously 3100 BC or 5100 BC was obviously not sufficiently documented about at least these early times to actually calibrate carbon.

Unlike the historic date for the War of Troy:

1179 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1179 BC

Citing my own comment under that one:

VIII, The Fall of Troy

In a way this is the least original. History says (Eratosthenes and precursors of the Christmas Day reading) Troy fell 1179 BC. There is at Troy a destruction layer dated to 1180 BC. I take this as the first detected occurrence of 100 pmC in the atmosphere back then.

This refers to:

The fall of Troy		1184 BC
	interval of 80 years
The return of the Heraclidae		1104
	interval of 60 years
The settlement of Ionia		1044
	interval of 159 years
The regency of Lycurgus		885
	interval of 108 years
The year before the 1st Olympiad		777
The First Olympiad		776

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ERATOSTHENES
By Darrell Wolcott
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id143.html

And the Olympiads actually function kind of as an epoch (like AD does).

Genesis 5 and 11 are a better documentation of time passing than old Egyptian sources, not a worse one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael in Mount Gargano
8.V.2026

In monte Gargano Apparitio sancti Michaelis Archangeli, quem Pius Papa Duodecimus Radiologis et Radiumtherapeuticis Patronum et Protectorem constituit.

PS, it seems Dynasty 0 was in the South, so, Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh might have been too far South to meet Abraham./HGL

An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund? · An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

A few years ago, I wrote:

I think the trade routes we are dealing with would push bilinguals and polyglots to the forefront in these areas for centuries (the trade routes Dan Davis speak of are not springing into existence in 1550 BC to end in 1450 BC in isolation), and, as said, such people carry on habits from one of their languages into another.

Creation vs. Evolution: Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund?
Wedn. 18 Jan. 2023 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/was-indo-european-group-sprachbund.html

Now, I have a reason to maybe push this further back, depending on what the following calibrates to:

The rise of Mycenean culture during the same period was undoubtedly also linked to the formation and establishment of such a new ruling warrior aristocracy. The travelling specialists who accompanied the introduction of this new institution, whether through trade or conquest, were responsible for expanding the horse equipment and its highly elaborate decoration that was associated with this new institution. It explains why similarly decorated antler bits are found from Denmark to Greece during the formative years 1750-1500 BCE, and also explains why chariots are depicted in rock art in Scandinavia and on early Mycenaean grave stelae during the same period.

Middle Bronze Age Decorated Antler Horse Bits Linking Denmark, Hungary and Early Mycenean Greece
by Kristian Kristiansen | [from] Mediterranean Horizons / Archaeological Studies in Honour of Søren Dietz
https://www.academia.edu/166139657/Middle_Bronze_Age_Decorated_Antler_Horse_Bits_Linking_Denmark_Hungary_and_Early_Mycenean_Greece

Let's look up the years* ...

1558 BC

97.75 pmC, dated as 1746 BC

...

1471 BC

99.049 pmC, dated as 1550 BC

Nope, on my calibration from Christmas 2024, the years are the same ... roughly speaking./HGL

* Table VI—VI/VII and node VII in Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

I'm Not Ron Wyatt

Before 45 minutes and 1 second to after 45 minutes and 42 seconds:

In one sense it doesn't matter at all. But my concern here is, you know, the reason I'm interested in it is that I don't want Christians to be misled into thinking that we have this powerful confirmation of the Bible that actually turns out to be bogus. You know, pointing to things in social media posts about, oh don't, you know, they've found chariot wheels in the Red Sea and they have the pillars of Solomon and there's a shallow sand bridge here when that turns out not to be true because you know, the danger is if a Christian maybe is convinced that this is proof of the Bible and they believe the Bible for this reason, what happens when somebody else comes along and points out, no, the evidence really doesn't align with this idea. It's based on the claims of Ron Wyatt and he's, you know, proven charlatan in many ways, is their faith going to be shipwrecked as a result?

Why This Red Sea Crossing Theory Doesn’t Hold Water
Creation Ministries International | 11 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoYzTGLt0s

Now, Ron Wyatt claimed to have gone to excavations that other people have either criticised or found not really credible.

I'm not making such a claim.

When I refer to a fact, if I "discovered" it, it was by maths and logic, or by going to the Bible text, it was not by personal and ill documented exploits of an explorer.

Even Graham Hancock has looked on more material himself than I have, I'm far closer to him than to Ron Wyatt, except, I'm a Christian.

So, when I say "in 4500 BC, when Laish was founded, it was ..."

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

I'm referring to a post of mine:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

If you go over there, you find there are two other posts around, one from Joseph in Egypt to the Fall of Troy, and one called Preliminaries.

On Flood to Joseph in Egypt, that section is on table III—IV. On preliminaries, you will find III = end of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, birth of Peleg, 401 years after the Flood (II = beginning of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, death of Noah, 350 years after the Flood), and you may disagree with that. You may think Peleg was born 101 after the Flood or 530 after the Flood. You may disagree on Göbekli Tepe being Nimrod's Babel. If so, go to the post Preliminaries to see what I did.

You will also find IV is Genesis 14, real date 1935 BC, carbon date 3500 BC, from the reed mats when the Chalcolithic people of En-Geddi = Asason Tamar evacuated, corresponding to them being attacked in Genesis 14.

Under the nodes III and IV and all other nodes, you will find a date I think is the Biblical date and a carbon date I think is the archaeological item to the Biblical event. And you will find a decimal fraction, which, if converted to percentage fraction, translates as the pmC level of the atmosphere back then.

Under this enumeration of the nodes, you will find how I did the tables between the nodes.

So, if you agree with two consecutive nodes of mine (I/II and VI/VII have been inserted between a I and a II and between a VI and a VII already so identified in previous versions of my tables), you should, unless you insert a node in between them, agree with my table in principle.

But if you don't agree with a table, it should be because you either disagree on its two limiting nodes (Biblical date if you have another chronology or carbon date if you read another article, or identification, if you disagree with my assessment). You are perfectly free to use my method (I appreciate if you acknowledge I gave this cue) according to your own preferences, in an article of your own.

I'd like to see your results and be able to criticise them.

And I'd very much appreciate not to be compared to people who are just asking you to take their word.

Right now, I'm assessing whether I should revise my Exodus chronology to make it Amenophis II. Or Amenhotep II. The video I just cited would actually tell me, if not its author, that this is not the best choice, but I'm still on the fence. Why not? Because Keaton Halley argues that at this time no one was extending "Egypt" into Canaan, even as far as Sinai. From the promise to Abraham, his seed were 430 years in "Egypt" (Hebrew wording of Moses), or in "Egypt and Canaan" (Greek wording of LXX translators), meaning, when Jacob is in Bethel, this is within the 430 years "in Egypt" ... That is not a 19th Dynasty Situation.

I'm happy to get involved in debates on my other "claims" which are also not claims of discovery in the exploration sense, just claims of putting two and two together. From things already known, already published, already discussed in some cases.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IIIrd LD after Easter
26.IV.2026

PS, obviously, the going after someone in his writings you acknowledge is a far less intrusive way than some to preserve Christians from falling away after trusting him too much or non-Christians from not converting when meeting Christians who still do. Making a deal to keep someone's writings a "secret" is obviously far likelier to bring financial trouble to the person concerned./HGL

Skeleton Bias

@DanDavisHistory
Where Are All The Prehistoric Women?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gHJ6VMZRE6Q

One reason is independent of how they died or were buried, if they got buried.

Bones decay, and thinner bones decay quicker, and adult men have denser and thicker bones.

The video does suggest a bias about burial too, as if the bias from bones weren't sufficient.

Now, as a Young Earth Creationist, as adhering to the Biblical Chronology, I do have some input to give.

In the pre-Flood world, as in Lower Palaeolithic and up to "40 000 years ago" there were cities, but we don't find them.

What we do find from that time is a bit like finding Chingachgook and possibly Natty Bumppo, but strictly only in the settings of Chingachgook, never in the kind of city-scape or country-side that Natty Bumppo was arguably from.

And it is possible that such people of "palaeolithic habits" (in a world that had cities, bronze and iron, cf Genesis 4 verses 17 and 22) were not populations, but more like clubs, specifically sometimes men's clubs. In the cases of deliberate burial, we would perhaps be likelier to find important men buried outside the cities, like Attila's and Genghis Khan's tombs are said to have been hidden in nature and those constructing them killed. People receiving that kind of treatment would more probably be men than women or children.

But when it comes to the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic, there is another part to this.

Noah died at the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic or perhaps in his region already Mesolithic, 350 years after the Flood. That's carbon dated to c. 9500 BC. Anything between then and back to 37 000 BC = 39 000 BP would have been people dying prematurely.*

So, what about the Mesolithic? Actually, for the Middle East, 20 000 to 10 000 BP are already Mesolithic, so no, I must admit I was wrong. As I look it up. But for Europe, the Mesolithic is 15 000 to 5000 BP. How much of it is passed when Shem dies, or Arphaxad?

Carbon Dated

13 000 BC

2691 BC

Eber born

2686 BC

24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC

2391 BC

Arphaxad died

2373 BC

61.194 pmC, dated as 6433 BC

1793 BC

Ishmael died

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

Carbon Dated

5000 BC

So, in terms of real years, the time from birth of Eber to death of Arphaxad is the smaller part, 300 years, while death of Arphaxad to death of Ishmael is the larger part, 600 years.

However, in terms of carbon years, the time from the birth of Eber to the death of Arphaxad is the larger part, 8023 carbon years, while the death of Arphaxad to the death of Ishmael is the smaller part 3404 years.

In the larger part of the carbon years prior to Arphaxad's death, and even beginning the next period, those dying prematurely will have outnumbered those who died at mature old age.

This is also why skeleta have a tendency to be anatomically age 40, since a man dying at 100 in the generation of Eber would have been physiologically closer to 40 than to 80.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen
24.IV.2026

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.

I gave excerpts from tables on Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt.

* As males are more wont to do, right?

Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Here is a video on Gilgamesh's palace.

Note, I agree Gilgamesh existed. He's one of my candidates for Nimrod, as arguably for Mr. Rohl or the now deceased Mr. Skiba. Well, for Skiba, I don't have to guess, I read him.

The Buried Palace of Gilgamesh Was Finally Opened — What Was Hidden Inside...
Creature Decoder | Origin Decoder | 15 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMewC2zKtQs

I don't know if the info on Gilgamesh's palace in the video is good or bad. I haven't seen all of it. I stopped it because of a faulty principle being expressed.

The list is not a religious text. It is an administrative record and administrative records do not include fictional entries alongside verified ones without that distinction being noted somewhere. It is not noted.

Oops ... so presumably Adolf Hitler and Martin Ludwig Bormann were more reliable people than Clemens August Count von Galen, the bishop of Munster?

That's the kind of error that led National Socialism rather than Zentrum to power in Germany.

It's also the kind of error that helped to make National Socialism bad./HGL

PS, there is some bad in the video, further on, where the Gilgamesh Epic is credited with helping to shape Genesis. It doesn't contain a vessel that would have been seaworthy in a global Flood, and Genesis 6 through 8 does./HGL

PPS, obviously, the Gilgamesh Epic would be more accurate on a tomb in the outskirts of Uruk. It seems the oldest layer of Uruk is carbon dated to 4500 BC, like that of Laish, later Tell Dan. For the real date and how to find it being somewhat before 2097 BC, see the previous post./HGL

Vindicated!

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

When I clicked on this video, I was telling myself a second: "I'm fried. I'm proven wrong. My argument is in ashes."

I thought Abraham's tomb had been found in a setting that carbon dates to 2000 BC, from misunderstanding the title:

This 4,000-Year-Old Gate Has a Biblical Secret
Artefactum | 9 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJMUlWQIQlE

I have maintained that Genesis 14, actually happening in (according to the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, it's chronology) around 1935 BC*, must fit an archaeological setting of carbon dated 3500 BC. Because of verse 7, which we know with an alternative name as En-Geddi, there is a carbon date of 3500 BC pretty firmly attached to the Amorrhites evacuating En-Geddi, presumably because of the Genesis 14 events. And this evacuation was permanent up to the Iron Age.

Now, here is the verse the video deals with:

Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan
[Genesis 14:14]

Presumably the name was back then still Laish, but Cohanim later updated the text after the city was renamed Tel Dan. Now, if a specific item clearly tied to Abraham in person had been found carbon dated to 2000 BC, I'd have been wrong. But it isn't. The gate can have been attached to the memory of Abraham after replacing an earlier one, which he actually saw. How far back does Laish or Dan reach into Archaeology? This is my real test.

Founded

c. 4500 BC

Abandoned

c. 733 BC

Periods

Neolithic period, Bronze Age, Iron Age

Cultures

Neolithic, Canaanite, Israelite

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_(ancient_city)

OK. Laish is founded in carbon dated 4500 BC, a thousand carbon years before carbon dated 3500 BC, when Genesis 14 happened. That's all I need.

Here we check how old Laish actually was when Abraham came:

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

2088 BC

Reu died

2086 BC

Terah born

2074 BC

76.074 pmC, dated as 4335 BC

2051 BC

77.1968 pmC, dated as 4191 BC

2028 BC

78.316 pmC, dated as 4048 BC

2016 BC

Abraham born

...

1936 BC

82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC

Source:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

So, founded around 2100 BC, in 1935 BC it isn't 1000 years old, but about 165 + years old. It had seen the transition from Neolithic to maybe Chalcolithic, already. In Genesis, the last thing we hear of "iron" is in chapter 4, a pre-Flood chapter, so, while Abraham arguably knew from pre-Flood tradition, he also knew no one knew where to get it right then in his time.

Probably, in Moses' day, the text said "Laish" and later, perhaps just in or after Joshua's, it was renamed "Dan" or "Tel Dan".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Friday
10.IV.2026

* Abraham is born 2015 BC, or more correctly 2016 (Jesus is born in 2015 after Abraham's birth and 752 after Rome's founding, but Rome is founded in 753 BC), and this occurs after he was 75 in chapter 12 and before he was 86 in chapter 16. 2015 - 80 = 1935 BC.

---