Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

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

Since the late revisions are revisions of a work that in its vast bulk remains, namely, New Tables, I'll take an item (Genesis 14) from New Tables. As written, and then as I usually write it, but didn't that once:

1935 B. Chr.

0.8273 pmC/100, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

1935 BC

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B. Chr.

82.73 gives 1550 extra years, +/- 10. I'd ideally want 1565 extra years. That's 82.753 pmC. But that also gives 1550 extra years. The carbon 14 calculator rounds.*

Now, the people who carbon dated the reed mats from the evacution of En-Geddi to 3500 BC, not 1935 BC, 1565 years later. They would agree that in 1935 BC, the reed mats had a carbon 14 content of 82.753 or 82.73 pmC.

We just disagree about why.

If you ask me, that's because, in the overall atmosphere, the carbon 14 content back then was 82.753 pmC. It had been rising and was going to continue to rise.

If you ask them, the reed mats are from 3500 BC, they started out with c. 100 pmC, both of which propositions I deny. But in 1935, they were 1565 years old, and their carbon 14 content had sunk to 82.753 pmC. I deny that having sunk, but I obviously agree that the level "by" = or rather in 1935 BC was 82.753 pmC.

If we go a bit further back, to Babel, I consider Göbekli Tepe as Nimrod's Babel, and I consider Babel as correctly datable by Biblical chronology, so, with Flood in 2957 BC** and Peleg born 401 after the Flood, Babel ends in 2556 BC.

Now, the carbon date I go by is, as latest limit for Göbekli Tepe, 8000 BC, but used to be 8600 BC. I read another article after doing New Tables. Here I give both values, New Tables and Revision:

2556 B. Chr.

0.481415 pmC/100, so dated as 8606 B. Chr.

2556 BC

51.761 pmC, so dated 8006 BC

I'll suppose the late limit for Göbekli Tepe changed because of some other find, which added some younger associated organic material.

Now, we disagree on when the organic material is from.

But we agree that something which is carbon dated to 8600 BC would have had 48.1415 pmC in 2556 BC — and something carbon dated to 8000 BC would have had 51.761 pmC in 2556 BC.

We also agree that they have lots less carbon 14 now.

8600 + 2024 = 10 624 years old => 27.66 pmC now.
8000 + 2024 = 10 024 years old => 29.743 pmC now.
3500 + 2024 = 5524 years old => 51.262 pmC now.

The reason I am giving the pmC for back when the samples came to be and not the pmC for now is, my controversy is:

• accounting for inflated carbon dates by carbon 14 levels back then
• and for this being in a realistic rise of carbon 14 levels
• and, incidentally, provide "translations" for the inflated carbon dates just after Babel to in Genesis 14 over the presumable carbon 14 levels between the points in time
• both of previous two points hanging together in my assumption that carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere won't go from 1.628 pmC to 51 pmC overnight.

The last point is also sth which I agree with Uniformitarians on. If cosmic rays overnight produced carbon 14 for 1.628 to 51, that would be a rise of 49.372 pmC points. Normal replacement in 100 years can be deduced from remaining carbon 14 levels after 100 years. 98.798 % of original content => normal replacement of 1.202 pmC points. This means, adding 1.202 pmC points overnight by cosmic radiation would be higher addition by a ratio of 36525 times normal, 49.372 / 1.202 gives a ratio of 41, roughly, multiply that by 36525, you get a ratio of 1 500 260 times normal replacement.

My check on the carbon rise is such that the worst multiplication I get in the very last revision is 20.702 times normal. Not one and a half million times normal, but 21 times normal.

Now, let's check that the values I give and the time I give match to the expectations I have just given.

2556 + 2024 = 4580 years old => 57.463 % of original content***
1935 + 2024 = 3959 years old => 61.946 % of original content

48.1415 * 57.463 / 100 = 27.664 pmC (match, discrepancy of less than 0.004 pmC)
51.761 * 57.463 / 100 = 29.743 pmC (match, discrepancies after 3rd decimal)
82.753 * 61.946 / 100 = 51.262 pmC (match, discrepancies after 3rd decimal)

This means, my theory is indeed, as I claim, equivalently accounting for current observations of carbon content in samples. The difference cannot be determined exclusively from such current observations, but is only about whether Biblical dates mean anything and whether if so they are more reliable than the dates chosen for calibrating the carbon 14 dates. I affirm this. The Uniformitarians deny this.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Monday
1.IV.2024

PS, it is also about whether my archaeological matches for Biblical events are correctly chosen, I think so, but that is another debate./HGL

* 0.827525739035656 is 0.5 to the power of 1565/5730. So, the correct value should be 82.753 or 82.7525739 pmC
** Should be 2958, since Jesus is born in 2957 after the Flood, which is in 1 BC.
*** Would have been 57.463 pmC if original content had been 100 pmC. Same for next line.