Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood

Anne Habermehl Still Wants Göbekli Tepe After Babel and Neanderthals Post-Flood   Lita Cosner and Robert Carter Still Want to Deny Euphrates and Tigris Being Frat and Hiddekel ...

She also still wants a Biblical chronology calibration for not just carbon dates, but all of uniformitarian or converntional dates, whether carbon or potassium argon.

Here is her paper:

A creationist view of Gӧbekli Tepe: Timeline and other considerations
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, 2018, by Anne Habermehl
https://www.academia.edu/39154731/A_creationist_view_of_G%D3%A7bekli_Tepe_Timeline_and_other_considerations

Here I cite parts of her timeline from figures 3 and 4 (parallel timelines for Masoretic Text - MT - and Septuagint Text - LXX - which is good, better than just MT).

figure 3
Conv.		Biblical MT
Acheulean, 1.76 mya		Babel/Peleg born 2250 BC
End of Neanderthals, 23 000 BC
Göbekli Tepe 10 000 BC		end of ice age c. 2040 BC
Nile Delta formed 6000 BC
Beg. First Dynasty c. 3000 BC		Abraham in Egypt 1920 BC

figure 4
Conv.		Biblical LXX
Acheulean, 1.76 mya		Babel/Peleg born 2570 BC
End of Neanderthals, 23 000 BC
Göbekli Tepe 10 000 BC		end of ice age c. 2170 BC
Nile Delta formed 6000 BC
Beg. First Dynasty c. 3000 BC		Abraham in Egypt 1920 BC

I have omitted the BC century dates, on the Biblical side which do not serve calibration, but only general overview.

I could not copy the figures and insert them as images here.

Now, what is wrong here?

On my view, more than one thing. Here:

• "conventional dating" is not one dating method and can therefore not have one calibration to Biblical chronology;
• I consider anything dated as over 100 000 years ago as dated most probably by potassium argon, therefore worthless as date, valuable only as to see how deep the volcanic eruption was in how cold water, perhaps whatever you like from the Flood or perhaps you could (at least at Laetolil) give "later and shallower, less cool water" as Flood proceeded;
• which would prove that Acheulean was used up to Flood, somewhere;
• I also consider Neanderthals as pre-Flood;
• I also consider Neanderthal extinction as Flood;
• I had also heard of no Neanderthal biological remains (unlike tools) carbon dated to more recent as 40 000 (Gorham cave has a level with more recent dates and Neanderthal type tools, Habermehl considered my conjecture about how it came to pass as novel writing, fine, I write fan fiction, and as she would not be taken seriously if trying it, fine, I am happy not to be hampered by such Academic decorum;
• I consider Peleg as born 401 years after Flood in Roman Martyrology chronology (LXX without Second Cainan), and 529 in George Syncellus (LXX with Second Cainan). Either of them, this place fits very neatly to carbon dates (ignoring all non-carbon in post-Flood chronology) like those of either early or late Göbekli Tepe, I opt for late, as I consider Göbekli Tepe as Babel;
• I also consider there is no such thing as a Biblical date for end of ice age. Beginning of ice age, sure, Flood. End? No.

If I had had my usual allotment of normal library card in Nanterre University Library, instead of one hour this morning and doing this in a cyber, I might have actually read lots more of her paper.

As it is, somewhat sullenly, I concentrated on what's wrong.

I don't think she has any fresh arguments against my positions since our debates, and she doesn't cite me as someone she has refuted. I. e. she thinks it is OK to ignore me because I am no Academic in the field.

I'll link to our previous debates in an appendix under my signature, as well as to my own table in another one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
St. Bernard of Siena OFM
20.V.2019

Appendix I

Label Habermehl on this blog:
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search/label/Habermehl

Possible other mentions here:
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/search?q=Habermehl

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Habermehl 2017, I
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/11/with-habermehl-2017-i.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Habermehl 2017, II
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/11/with-habermehl-2017-ii.html

Appendix II

Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/bricks-at-gobekli-tepe-or-close.html

Scroll down to "Citing relevant parts of my latest carbon table:" or read it in full on:

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

Appendix III

Other on Babel as Göbekli Tepe:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2019/03/with-mackey-on-haman-and-on-babel.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/04/ten-keys-to-my-idea-of-gobekli-tepe-as.html

Comparing Habermehl's Take and Mine

Here is Anne Habermehl, from JOURNAL OF CREATION 31(2) 2017, Sodom—part 2, read it carefully, it is a fine intelectual feat, beyond most these days:

We first need to find a crossover date for Joseph and Imhotep. For that, we will calculate when construction of the Saqqara pyramid by Djoser probably began, because this project is known to have been overseen by Imhotep.55 If we allow for a few years of this pharaoh’s reign before Joseph was promoted, plus 14 years for the seven years each of plenty and famine, this would take us perhaps 20 years into the pharaoh’s reign before the beginning of construction of this pyramid. (We are making an assumption on this, because it was at the end of the famine period that the people were literally owned by the pharaoh, and were therefore available to be conscripted to work for him. However, construction could have begun earlier.) Djoser began his reign in about 2670 bc (secular time) as noted above, making the start of the Saqqara pyramid around 2650 bc. This is the date that we can use for placing Imhotep and Joseph together on the secular timeline. Joseph was made vizier by the pharaoh in 1715,56 182 years after Sodom’s destruction in 1897 (which was one year before Isaac’s birth).57 If we count 20 years to the beginning of the Saqqara pyramid, this makes a round figure of about 200 years back to Sodom’s destruction/Abraham. This would appear to land Abraham at 2850 bc (secular time). But this is in the middle of the murky period of the first and second dynasties, and like all the rest of the Egyptian timeline, there is every reason to believe that these dynasties are stretched out and contain extra time.58 This means that 200 years on the biblical timeline could represent quite a bit more time at this distant period in Egypt’s history. So how far back would Abraham go? A plausible time would be somewhere around 3000 bc, the beginning of the first dynasty. There is in fact a hint in ancient secular history to support this date.

Here are the notes 55 to 58:

• 55. Oakes and Gahlin, ref. 48, p. 46.
  
  
  • (48. For example Oakes, L. and Gahlin, L., Ancient Egypt, Hermes House, Anness Publishing Inc., New York, p. 46, 2002. Currently most scholars accept approximately this date for Djoser, although Egyptian dates are always subject to tweaking by somebody or other.)
  
  
  
• 56. Jones, ref. 1, p. 278. The Jones chronology puts the children of Israel in Egypt for 215 years, which I support. However, whether or not it was 215 years does not affect where Abraham and Joseph go on the secular timeline—it only changes the number of years between the secular and biblical timelines at that point.
  
  
• 57. Jones, ref. 1, p. 278.
  
  
  • (1. This figure is based on 215 years as the length of time that the children of Israel lived in Egypt. The apostle Paul supports a stay of 215 years in Egypt when he says in Galatians 3:17 that God’s covenant with Abraham (in Canaan) was 430 years before the giving of the law. For more information on this, see Jones, F.N., The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th edn, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 53–55, 2007. Jones (who follows the Masoretic), shows that internal calculations of Scripture indicate 215 years in Egypt. The LXX translations of Exodus 12:40 clearly indicate 215 years in Egypt, saying that 430 years was the time of residence in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.)
  
  
  
• 58. Secular scholars simply do not know for sure whether all the pharaohs of these dynasties reigned in series or concurrently, and for how long, or even whether some of these were pharaohs under different names. For example, see Wilkinson, T.A.H., Early Dynastic Egypt, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 55─91, 1999.

O K .... what is Habermehl consistently leaving out?

Carbon 14 dating.

Do I believe carbon 14 dating yields correct dates? No. Not this far back, while carbon 14 ratio had not reached present level yet. Later on, yes.

Do I believe a correspondence between carbon 14 dates and real dates (Biblical timeline) can be made? Yes.

What is the exact place in above quoted passus, where such a distinction would be useful?

Joseph was made vizier by the pharaoh in 1715,56 182 years after Sodom’s destruction in 1897 (which was one year before Isaac’s birth).57 If we count 20 years to the beginning of the Saqqara pyramid, this makes a round figure of about 200 years back to Sodom’s destruction/Abraham. This would appear to land Abraham at 2850 bc (secular time)

This assumes that carbon dates have nothing to do with secular time, only inserting too many pharaos.

Now, she corrects this, slightly, but indirectly:

This means that 200 years on the biblical timeline could represent quite a bit more time at this distant period in Egypt’s history.

200 years on real timeline can represent down to 200 years on carbon timeline only after carbon 14 has reached present level. As long as carbon 14 is rising, two carbon dates taken from items left in the ground at a real distance of 200 years will seem more distant than that, since the earlier of them had lower carbon 14 content, yielding more "instant age" years.

On the other hand, if the "secular timeline" is made by one carbon date + one historic distance in time (other item 200 years after or before the carbon dated item), then the method outlined by Habermehl will work. Unless spurious history, like extra pharaos or extra years, is inserted.

Now, it is interesting that Habermehl and I agree on Joseph being Imhotep. It so happens, the point of secular timeline we are dealing with has a carbon date, namely the coffin of pharao Djoser. Unfortunately, this carbon date is somewhat obfuscated as a pure carbon date by its being presented in the form of a calibrated one. I think I read some paper saying the raw carbon date for Djoser's coffin is samples at least one of which goes back to 2800 BC. Either way, 2800 BC or 2600 BC, Joseph is prior to the carbon date 2400 BC - which is that of earliest Ebla tablets. This amply explains (Ebla tablets being very contemporary diplomacy, nothing to do with remote historiography unless relevant for the then active diplomats) why Ebla archive has no mention of Sodom or Gomorrah. Some assume "2400 BC is before Sodom was destroyed according to the Bible" - yes, indeed. But only 2400 BC on the real Biblical timeline. 2400 BC in carbon dates, which are inflated, is after Joseph. This also means, since Ebla tablets are prior to earliest tablet of Enuma Elish, all parts of Genesis, except chapter one which was revealed to Moses on Sinai and his editing, like replacing earlier theonyms with Adonai when appropriate, were already redacted, either in writing or orally (arguably chapters from 12 on would have been originally written redactions, while first 11 chapters can have been redacted for oral transmission) were already in place in Egypt, available to Moses, before we can trace Enuma Elish.

But back to business.

Sodom was destroyed 182 years before Joseph was made vizier, Isaac was born 181 years before that later date, since year after destruction of Sodom. This I accept from Habermehl's sources, notably Jones, F.N., The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th edn, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 53–55. Now, Isaac was born 1915 BC if Abraham was born 2015 BC (or 2012 BC, two versions of the chronology involved in Roman Martyrology).

1912	1915	BC
0181	0181
1731	1734	BC

How many years did Djoser have overall? 19 or 28 according to wikipedia, meaning, sources would be differring.

If Joseph was made vizier in the beginning of Djoser's reign of 19 years, Djoser died five years after the fourteen years under Imhotep's or JOseph's supervision, if Joseph was made vizir in the fifth year, Djoser died after the 14 years.

1731	1731	1734	1734	BC
0019	0014	0019	0014
1712	1717	1715	1720	BC

If Joseph was made vizier in the beginning of Djoser's reign of 28 years, we have another option:

1731	1734	BC
0028	0028
1703	1706	BC

So, Biblical and real date for Djoser's death would be at latest 1703 BC and at earliest 1720 BC.

The problem with the following is, the carbon date is probably already calibrated:

"Dr Ramsey's team was able to determine the exact period when this king reigned Egypt - from about 2691 to roughly 2625 BC, said the scientist."

Citing : BBC : Radiocarbon dating verifies ancient Egypt's history
By Katia Moskvitch Science reporter, BBC News, 17 June 2010
https://www.bbc.com/news/10345875

But I'll take either extreme 2691 BC or 2625 BC as if it were uncalibrated carbon date. I don't think the span refers to the span of his rein, which was definitely shorter than 67 years.

2691	2691	2625	2625	BC
1703	1720	1703	1720	BC
0988	0971	0922	0905

So, the extra years are 905 to 988. This gives us the pmC levels, since "extra years" = instant age sth would have had if tested when dying or being felled back then:

988	971	922	905
88.735	88.918	89.446	89.63

Now, for Abraham in Genesis 13 or 14, I'm presuming he was 80 years old, I take 3400 (Proto-Elamitic) to 3100 (early dynastic) BC as the carbon dates.

2015	2012	BC
0080	0080
1935	1932	BC
3400	3400	3100	3100	BC
1935	1932	1935	1932	BC
1465	1468	1265	1268

1468	1465	1268	1265
83.729	83.76	85.78	85.811

So, this leaves between the carbon dated (or near so) events of Abraham in Egypt and fighting for Sodom and Djoser's death a rise in carbon level between 85.811 to 88.735 pmC and 83.729 to 89.63 pmC.

What would be the carbon date of Sodom? Well, calibrate a rise from one carbon level to the other over the Biblical and real years, and take the value for 20 years after Genesis 13/14. That pmC level will give you the number of extra years and that added to the Biblical years will give you the uncalibrated carbon date with Cambridge halflife, closer to the calibrated one than to the one called "uncalibrated" which is given in BP and uses Libby half life.

This carbon 14 calculator uses the Cambridge halflife.

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Obviously, it is meant to be used by uniformitarians (who are right on most samples - there have been exceptional ones from exceptional circumstances like marine, iceberg or near nuke explosion - when they come from recent years, like last 2000 or 2500 years if not more), as a way to date in the present something having in the present a certain carbon 14 level, and also, for a given age, if you look for things having a certain age, predict the carbon 14 level of most relevant samples. A corpse found in the battlefields of the Marne ought to be 100 years old and therefore have a carbon 14 level of 98.798 pmC, unless it's more recently there from a serial killer, in which case it has more pmC.

Nevertheless, given the concept of a carbon buildup, the exact same mathematics serve to tie "extra years" to successive levels of carbon 14 during the Biblical timeline (for which I use that of Roman Martyrology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Andrew
30.XI.2018

Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders)

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders) · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

On today's article, Michael Oard enumerates three schools about Flood / post-Flood boundary. I am citing a minimum to show what they have in common:

• "The first believes that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Paleozoic"
  
  
• "The second school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary."
  
  
• "The third school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the end of the Cenozoic."

All of above seem to say a "defined Geologic period" is either from the Flood or from post-Flood, anywhere on earth. That Cretaceous and Jurassic could be a biotope type which was recreated after the Flood too doesn't occur to him. Or biotope types which were. To me a Hadrosaurus date by Armitage suggests that.

CMI : Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks

Of course, some geologic layers, like "recent humus soil" on top of all rocks and clay, are automatically post-Flood. No one would dispute that.

I would add some back onto that list : Younger Dryas is Post-Flood, since just before Babel, if my theory of Babel = Göbekli Tepe is correct.

Upper Palaeolithic in archaeology - or the parts carbon dated to after carbon date of last fully Neanderthal skeleton in Europe - is post-Flood. I take this to be 40 000 YA, but some have argued that Neanderthals "could have survived to 28 000 BP", which I think is based on charcoals in a cave in Gibraltar, the charcoals being from 28 000 YA, the cave including previous Neanderthal occupation.

Gibraltar 1 skull - undated.
Gibraltar 2 skull - dated to "between 30 000 and 50 000 BP"

"The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork. Another specimen from a different locale on Gibraltar (Gibraltar 2) has however been dated to between 30 thousand to 50 thousand years old."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Giving reference 4:

Smith, T. M.; Tafforeau, P.; Reid, D. J.; Pouech, J.; Lazzari, V.; Zermeno, J. P.; Guatelli-Steinberg, D.; Olejniczak, A. J.; Hoffman, A.; Radovcic, J.; Makaremi, M.; Toussaint, M.; Stringer, C.; Hublin, J.-J. (15 November 2010). "Dental evidence for ontogenetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (49): 20923–20928. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010906107. PMC 3000267 Freely accessible. PMID 21078988.

Not finding the reference for Gibraltar 1 / Gibraltar 2.

The reason is excellent. I had used a wikipedian article in another shape than the present one.

Here is from my article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/neanderthal-pre-or-post-flood.html

Common name

Gibraltar Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Species

Homo(sapien) neanderthalensis

Age

30,000 to 40,000 years

Place discovered

Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar

Date discovered

1848

Discovered by

Edmund Flint

Now, same article on wiki has age as "unknown". Revision as of 01:49, 8 November 2016 - it was there. Revision as of 18:54, 28 April 2017 - it goes, replaced by "unknown", courtesy of wikipedian user Nicolas Perrault III.

Now, anyway, my point is, if her skeleton was in terms of carbon dates so much older than the charcoal at Gorham Cave, then she could be pre-Flood, the charcoal early post-Flood (of same cave).

Apart from charcoal at Gorham cave, I don't know anything which would put Neanderthals as recent, in carbon terms, as 28 000 BP.

I suppose all cave paintings to be post-Flood, not from a creationist karstological view point that caves "perhaps only formed during and after Flood", but more in terms of water of the Flood would have washed away or severely smudged the colours.

In Neanderthal caves we don't find paintings, we have found a hashtag. In Cro Magnon caves, we do find paintings ... meaning, on my view, Cro Magnon is the race which came out of the Ark.

This detail about Neanderthals will also be relavant to a point about Habermehl's theory of the "ziggurat of Babel".

AiG : Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?
by Anne Habermehl on March 23, 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/

I am nearly totally agreed with her on the geographic sites:

Agreed

and I am relying on her effort:

36°50′24″N 40°4′7″E

Calneh (Tell Fekheriye)

37°3′29″N 40°53′44″E

Erech (Tell Aqab)

36°40′03.42″N 41°03′31.12″E

Akkad (Tell Brak)

Disgreed

37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E

Babel - HGL (Göbekli Tepe)

36.5117°N 40.7422°E - 36°51′01″N 40°04′14″E

Babel - Habermehl (Khabur triangle)

I am disagreeing with her on other topics, and this shows in her rejection of Göbekli Tepe as Babel:

"It is widely believed that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat, also called a stepped pyramid; a quick search on the internet will bring up any number of sites that state this (for example, Livingstone 2008). There is good reason to believe this, because the many ziggurats that are known around the world20 clearly point back to a time when there was an original ziggurat, the knowledge of which traveled with people as they spread out to populate the earth. For creationists, who believe the Bible story in Genesis 11 literally, this original ziggurat has to be the Tower of Babel."

Not necessarily. To Babel in Shinar one came from the East. And there seems to be a ziggurat carbon dated in parts to 20 000 BC (pre-Babel on my view) very far indeed in the East - if Graham Hancock is right about Gunang Padang. Here is my reference between Josephus / Comestor and Gunang Padang:

Now, let's reason a bit about this. Ethann, Helioschora ... could it be Gunung Padang?

• 1) It is clearly further East than Göbekli Tepe;
• 2) If Younger Dryas involved some gigantic Floods (though inferior to Flood of Noah), this would explain the shyness of getting onto a plain (and would explain a preference for a plain where it is fairly high, like GT, now 760 meters above sea level, over a lower plain, like 34 m (100 feet) above present sea level;
• 3) Gunung Padang flourished (or started to get built) 20 000 BP, 18 000 BC, carbon dates, if Hancock is right about drill holes. This would be before Younger Dryas - and Younger Dryas is very evocative of "But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty:"

My article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/is-graham-hancock-right-on-gobekli-tepe_18.html

Referring to a Hancock interview here:

Ancient Extinction Revealed: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe & Mysteries of the Gods with Graham Hancock
TheLipTV2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EkJlZE3jY

I therefore submit, earliest ziggurat was not Babel, but before it, in the east.

"We also do not know how many able-bodied men were available to do the building work; estimates of the total population at the time of the dispersion have varied greatly, from under a thousand (Morris 1966) to 65,000 (Tower of Babel 2010), to name two. Whatever the number was, this author takes the view that the long-lived people at Babel were Neanderthals, and thus known to be physically very strong (Cuozzo 1998; Habermehl 2010; Trinkaus 1978); they would have been able to do much harder physical work than humans today."

I disagree with Habermehl on this one.

Neanderthals are not long lived post-Flood men, they are another pre-Flood race. On the Ark, no full Neanderthal was on board, but one daughter in law of Noah (at least) would have been half Neanderthal, or less. This is why no strict Neanderthal race survives today, but some races have more Neanderthal traits than others.

That is why I set Flood / Post-Flood limit in carbon dates as last carbon date of a Neanderthal skeleton. As said above, in connection with Michael Oard.

"According to Genesis 11:3, the Tower was built of “burnt” brick—that is, kiln-baked brick. This is a very durable material, and because of this, remnants of the Tower may well have survived the ages."

You know, I heard some rocket engineers at NASA are using basically same material = ceramics = burnt brick as shields for heat or against radiation.

This obviously has to do with what I think the tower was (or was meant to be, not claiming it would have been functional) : a three step rocket at takeoff looks like a tower and only the top section actually makes it to deep space.

Also, technically, the text does not say that both tower or city or either of them was burnt brick, just that they had invented the technique.

"Remote Sensing: What Are the Chances That We Will Ever Find the Tower and City of Babel?"

Göbekli Tepe : city found, three step rocket not yet found. Perhaps not even left in place.

You see, the narration says they ceased to build on the city.

This is arguably true for Göbekli Tepe, it was even covered in sand, deliberately.

It does not say they ceased to build on the Tower. If it was a rocket prototype, one of the groups would have been able to take it away. I suppose to China, where I suppose gunpowder was invented to replace Uranium as Nimrod's planned (and very ill planned, fortunately not tried) rocket fuel. Meaning China in one way continued to build the "tower" - each Chinese forework rocket being a miniature of it. Others in other ways, like ziggurats (recall the Gunang Padang one?) and stone circles (Stonehenge and a few more).

Since it is a few months back at least that I argued about Nimrod was probably going to use Uranium as rocket fuel, and that is part of why God "stopped the Babel building," (not totally, but the immediate concerted effort, delaying millennia to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, so a safer fuel was discovered, H2+O2), Nimrod would have known Uranium from the probably pre-Flood times described in Mahabharata : part of the Ghita resembles an atomic exposion and was cited by Oppenheimer, and other parts reflect radioactive contamination properties). For those who consider Mahabharata matters as post-Flood, Nimrod would have known Uranium at first hand, and have been even more stupid to want to try it. I consider he knew it from hearsay (a bit less reflected than that in the later poem Mahabharata) and that the ice age as part goal from God's side, was to prevent Nimrod's getting Uranium from Canada.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
15.XII.2017