Why Should one Use my Tables?

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

If you believe, as I, that:

• the Bible has the true account of the history of mankind
• the scientific community hasn't so
• the correct Biblical chronology is fairly adequately reflected in Roman Martyrology for December 25
• nevertheless, carbon dates rely on real, accurate measures of remaining C14 in the samples and on a halflife that can be verified in the history of the last 2000 years

then my tables are a fair option.

You might be an atheist believing that the Bible has no value - you don't need to use them, unless you are into polemising with us Creationists, in which case you might want to check the coherence of our case.

You might be a Neo-Catholic who sacralises the science community - dito.

You may believe another Biblical chronology is more correct - then make similar tables for your chronology.

Or you may rely on such a carbon dater bungling the apparatus, or on halflife having changed with speed of light, while I think bunglers are a minority in the scientists opposing the Creationist view, and both C14, Ka-Ar and Distant Starlight Problem have more coherent approaches than Setterfield, and the tables are mine for C14, this makes you and me disagree too.

Why would I be correct when so many are wrong, who are better qualified?

Their being scientists is of course a better qualification, and I believe them as far as I think that qualification gets them : i. e. into their measures of present remaining C14. If they say sth has been dated to 6830 BC, I'll believe them that it has 34.31 pmC right now.

But if they say Japanese lake bottoms prove the atmosphere had 100 pmC for the latest 50 000 years, or whatever it was, I'll believe the Bible over the reading of layers in a Japanese lake bottom. And I'll say, no, it probably had 58.4214 pmC back in 2377 BC.

Why me, when so many Creation scientists, better qualified and believing the Bible over Japanese lake bottoms too, haven't come up with this?

They have been busy doing other stuff, they have perhaps had trouble fitting the needed rise in C14 into the time frame, they are perhaps unaware C14 is successfully used in items for last 2000 years to 3000 years, and, best of all, they didn't have to stand up alone to a challenge of atheist to vaguely neo-Catholic students of psychology one evening around a beer in the lush gardens of Nanterre Univesity, when I had left the University Library for the day.

They told me, the rise in C14 needed for my chronology to be true would be the effect of so much solar activity all life except invertebrates would perish on earth, and I decided to check: and part of the checking was also checking how fast C14 had risen, and therefore what the successive levels were, which instantly I seized as a way of making the kind of tables I now present. My first try is here : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, before a month had passed, I was as good as this : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, I had refuted the idea of a rise within created time from near zero (or sufficiently low) to the present level, a rise from near zero at Flood would have landed as to 45 pmC, note well, IF the production of C14 had always been same pace as now, in this post : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près.

Since my "Fibonacci table", I have mainly taken more and more matches between archaeology and Biblical timeline into account, Göbekli Tepe as Babel (as I write this, I am aware Tell Qaramel is dated to, for beginnings, a few millennia older than Göbekli Tepe, meaning, at least a few decades older than Babel, if Göbekli Tepe still is. This part may be fluctuating on my future work, but for now I am wondering whether Tell Qaramel could be Babel instead, while it is West of Euphrates, therefore technically not in Mesopotamia, Shinar, unlike Göbekli Tepe.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady's Assumption
15.VIII.2020