And CMI Scores a Point

Pop-culture Evolutionism
by Paul Price | Published: 18 March 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/pop-culture-evolutionism

You can say that again, over here in the country of Rahan, son of the ruthless ages!/HGL

Alice C. Linsley Misses a Point

Biblical Anthropology : Promoting YEC by Undermining the Truth
http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2021/03/promoting-yec-by-undermining-truth.html

Young Earth Creationists consistently ignore anthropological data because it shows that humans have been around for millions of years. By insisting that the Earth is only 6000-8000 years, Young Earth Creationists deny the weighty evidence that God was laying the ground among archaic human populations for the Messianic Faith that would eventually be fulfilled in Jesus.

The hope for immortal life is evident in the widespread, archaic practice of burial in red ocher, a symbolic blood covering. Red ocher burials dating to 300,000 years ago have been found at site GnJh-03 in the Kapthurin Formation of East Africa, and at Twin Rivers in Zambia.

Red ocher burials dating to 100,000 year ago have been found at the Qafzeh Cave in Lower Galilee.

A man buried at La Chapelle-aux-Saints in southern France was buried in red ocher 45,000 years ago.

First, we don't know if red ochre burials refer to resurrection or sth else.

But second, more important, supposing it did, replacing site GnJh-03, Qafzeh Cave, La Chapelle-aux-Saints and the rest into Biblical chronology doesn't change this. If a preparation for the Gospel thought to be 300 000 years old was really just 5000 years old, this doesn't mean, 300 000 years ago men were without that preparation, it means that 300 000 thousand years ago doesn't exist in the first place.

Alice C. Linsley claims these dates are inferred from multiple dating methods. Let's check.

GnJh-03 - I could not find details of excavation as to what method was used.
Qafzeh Cave - thermoluminiscence
La Chapelle-aux-Saints - also doesn't give any specific chemical or radioactive analysis, but some wording suggests that 45 000 years ago was inferred from things like certain things being "already" there and him "still" a Neanderthal.

Next item on her list, we have radiocarbon dates that disagree:

In the 1960s Kenneth Oakley published a radiocarbon determination of 18,460 ± 340 BP.[5] Results published in 1989 and 1995 suggest that the individual from the cave lived about 26,000 years ago (26,350 ± 550 BP, OxA-1815), during the later periods of the Upper Paleolithic. A 2007 examination by Thomas Higham of Oxford University and Roger Jacobi of the British Museum suggested a dating of 29,000 years ago.[9] A recalibration of the results in 2009 suggest an age of 33,000 years.

Next is carbon only too:

It is dated by calibrated carbon analysis to between 32,050 and 28,550 BC.

Next is another version of Red Lady of Paviland. Obviously, again, carbon dates.

Dolní Věstonice is radiocarbon, and the date given for Mungo woman here is the radiocarbon date, there is a conflicting thermoluminiscence date, as noted by Tas Walker:

The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years. ... But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly, the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’ estimate and launched Mungo Woman to national and international fame. ... The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years.

The dating game
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 26(1):36–39, December 2003
https://creation.com/the-dating-game

Seaching Santa Maria di Agnano cave gives a site that clearly speaks of carbon dates:

The cave of Santa Maria di Agnano (Brindissi, Italy) had been frequented by human groups in many periods spanning from the Gravettian to historic times [1-3]. In 1991, this cave of Santa Maria d’ Agnano revealed the presence of two Gravettian burials [2,4]: ostuni 1 (25589-25482 calBC) and ostuni2 (26339-25779 cal BC).

The Site of Santa Maria di Agnano (Brindissi, Italy)
Amel Chakroun1*, Henry Baills2 and Donato Coppola3
https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/GJAA.MS.ID.555632.php

When you say some date with "cal BC" that is carbon, since precisely carbon comes both in the version Libby date, raw date with Libby's halflife, stated in carbon years BP, and with a calibrated date, using Cambridge halflife but also other interacting clues to determine how a Libby date translates to a probable BC date.

Alice C. Linsley repeats the Red Lady of Paviland, without linking, when mentioning a man in Munich, 20 000 years ago. This time she is using the youngest version of the carbon date. Also, this time she uses initial misidintification of the man as a woman.

In El Mirón, where the other (yes, for once not same as in Paviland) Red Lady is buried in ochre, the dating was by charcoals, and as such obviously carbon dated (as I resume the following, for those unaware of German grammar).

Im Verlauf von mehreren Probegrabungen konnten im Boden der Höhle zahlreiche unterschiedlich alte Schichten unterschieden werden, die anhand von Artefakten (zum Beispiel Scherben oder Steinwerkzeugen) von der Bronzezeit über die Kupfersteinzeit und die Mittelsteinzeit reichten; die älteste Schicht wurde anhand von Holzkohlenresten auf ein Alter von 41.280 ± 1120 Jahre BP und somit ins späte Moustérien datiert.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cueva_de_El_Mirón Reference : Lawrence Guy Straus: El Mirón Cave and the 14C-Chronology of Cantabrian Spain. In: Radiocarbon. Band 45, Nr. 1, The University of Arizona 2003, S. 41–58, Volltext

And her last item?

NYT : In the Bones of a Buried Child, Signs of a Massive Human Migration to the Americas
By Carl Zimmer, Jan. 3, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/science/native-americans-beringia-siberia.html

The article doesn't mention how the child is dated to 11 500 years ago, but with dates as recent as this one, carbon 14 is standard.

In other words, basically all of the different dates given are carbon dates. Far from each item being dated independently by different methods, as she pretends, if I get her insinuation correctly*, nearly all are carbon only, one is thermoluminiscence only, and one has carbon with three different dates and then also a thermoluminiscence date she hasn't heard of, another has its different carbon dates given as different individuals. And, obviously, one is of unknown method.

And, third, she misses the real origin of the Messianic hope, before all burials in red ochre. The facts related in Genesis 3, specifically God's words to the serpent, about making the Blessed Virgin Mary his implacable enemy. For of course, if she takes all laboratory dates at face value, she is unable to take the transmission from Genesis 3 times to Moses as reliable historic tradition, which I as well as Father George Leo Haydock in his comment on the chapter do.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Patrick
17.III.2021

PS, the unknown who commented under her post is not the same as the one who commented three times under mine to recommend a writing help./HGL

* Insinuation I read into following citation:

Young Earth Creationism either ignores the bulk of human artifacts that are many thousands, even millions of years old, or it attempts to discredit the dating by saying that carbon dating is inaccurate. Of course, scientists use many dating methods.

** From his Bible comment:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People

Theoretic Demography Limits · Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People · Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Here is a little answer to his inept quote from Star Trek* and its hero Commander Spock. "Multiplying with an average litter of ten, producing a new generation every twelve hours ..."

I am not defending that Bab edh-Dhra is Sodom (or Gomorrah). I have other reasons against that, but Holy Koolaid's point was that eleven generations after the Flood 500 000 people in one place is simply impossible. Now, let's do some calculations.

Flood to end of Babel (aka birth of Peleg), 401 or 529 years. (101 years is wrong Bible text).

End of Babel to destruction of Sodom, one years before Isaac was born (nine months, actually), 2556 - 1916 BC = 640 years. (Same timespan with other LXX version, since the difference is in presence vs absence of II Cainan before Peleg). Let's add up:

401 + 640 = 1041 years
529 + 640 = 1169 years

The point with quoting Spock was, the population growth factor would be humanly impossible. In Africa, we have a demographic growth of 3 % a year, which is 1.03 raised to the number of years. Obviously, the population growth we do have observed anywhere is humanly possible. Let's suppose only this humanly possible population growth were the actual one ... would we get our half million?

1.03¹⁰⁴¹ = 23 096 752 368 116.477
1.03¹¹⁶⁹ = 1 015 583 602 870 594.1

It certainly seems we would. In fact, the sum would be more than we ever had on earth, more than earth can sustain, our present population on the globe would be 0.000 303 072 91 of it. Or 0.03 %.

However, Holy Koolaid is not doing present population growth in Africa. He is doing archaeologists' estimation of how fast the population grew at this time ... too bad if that is heavily influenced by their estimate of the time span, so it is 1000 slower than the population growth in Niger ... But he is for arguments' sake granting the population growth in Niger, while giving it a heavily dehumanising slant ... and arrives at 500 000 on the entire globe by destruction of Sodom.

With a slower growth (obviously a possible one) and even that's impossibly high result, I get Bab edh-Dhra totals at a very low portion of the overall population:

500 000 / 23 096 752 368 116.477 = 2.164 806 51 × 10⁻⁸
500 000 / 1 015 583 602 870 594.1 = 4.923 277 6 × 10⁻¹⁰

Obviously, earth had lots fewer people and the portion at Bab edh-Dhra would be a larger portion of it.

As he mentioned the tower of Babel, what could the population of earth have been when its building started, at shorter LXX chronology? I'd have Babel start 40 years earlier, so 401 - 40 = 361, eleven years after Noah died.

1.03³⁶¹ = 43 076 (skipping decimals).

If Babel was Göbekli Tepe, if the tower was a rocket, which would have very few actual direct builders, I think this would be, in forty years, enough for not only what we see as per already excavated, but even ... 813.173 meters diameter with half a sq km, if we look at what ground scans reveal below the ground.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas
6.III.2021

Here is the video : https://youtu.be/dJv0OvFnVXU. He is also avoiding the already given information that I have other calibrations for the chronology .../HGL

PS, I was seriously tired and forgot to that 43 076 and the other ones are actually factors, to be multiplied with the original 8 after the Flood. So, 43 076*8 = 344 608, really sufficient for Göbekli Tepe, and the other numerals, the results for 3 % that long are anyway "off charts"./HGL

* STARTREC adds up to 616, I recall ...

S	83	080	03
T	84	160	07
A	65	220	12
R	82	300	14
T	84	380	18
R	82	460	20
E	69	520	29
C	67	580+	36 = 616

FB Censors CMI

This post can't be shared In response to Australian government legislation, Facebook restricts the posting of news links and all posts from news Pages in Australia. Globally, the posting and sharing of news links from Australian publications is restricted.

I tried to share:

CMI : Comparison of morphology-based and genomics-based baraminology methods
by Matthew Cserhati and Joel Tay | This article is from
Journal of Creation 33(3):49–54, December 2019
https://creation.com/baraminology-methods

The actual context is a debate on whether Robert Sungenis was right to criticise "Cardinal" Schönborn from a standpoint of species fixism, or whether he would profit from an approach like "baraminology". Hardly any kind of news of the day link.

I suppose this is an abuse of an actual legislation, but don't know exactly what that legislation is, since FB notification window cited above with button OK doesn't tell!/HGL

(Testing with a link to ABC, it's not just CMI!/HGL)

Gavin Cox, Egypt, C14

How to fit "mythical kings" in Turin King List with pre-Flood patriarchs, I think Gavin Cox may know more than I:

CMI : The search for Adam, Eve, Noah and the Flood—in Ancient Egypt?
Published: 13 February 2021 (GMT+10)
by Gavin Cox, Feedback 2021
https://creation.com/adam-eve-noah-flood-ancient-egypt

Now, what about the pyramids, C14?

CMI : Time fears the pyramids?
by Gavin Cox | This article is from
Creation 42(1):18–20, January 2020
https://creation.com/pyramids-of-egypt-age

First, one more area of agreement:

... secular dating for the oldest of Egypt’s pyramids presents no threat to the accuracy of biblical history. The dates offered for these monuments are themselves questioned by the experts who calculate them—which are in turn based upon their worldview, which rejects any notion of the global Flood as a real event in history. In reality, the oldest of Egypt’s pyramids fit comfortably within biblical history and timescale as post-Flood and post-Babel monuments. They were built by the descendants of Noah, through Ham, Mizraim, and their offspring.

Now, where we differ is in technical detail.

However, it is the Flood which would have had the major effect on the carbon ratio. This becomes increasingly significant the closer the sample’s true age is to the time of the Flood. This is because the Flood buried huge amounts of ¹²C in vegetation, but the amount of ¹⁴C being produced is unaffected by this. This would significantly increase the post-Flood ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio compared to the pre-Flood times,7 thus giving an inflated age to any sample from the pre-Flood world.8

Footnote 7
Because the carbon dating calibration is based on the post-Flood world. See also: Cox, G., How old? When archaeology conflicts with the Bible, 1 Nov 2018; creation.com/archaeology-conflicts.

Footnote 8
Easily found within the list of articles in ref. 5.
See Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers; creation.com/dating .

Yes, the radiometric calibration is based on the post-Flood and indeed very recent such world.

But, we have a problem ... supposing the ¹²C before in atmosphere and in living things before the Flood were twice the present, and nothing else were different between the atmospheres this would imply that the stable ¹⁴C ratio would be half the one we have. However, there is no need to think that it was ever reached. There is no need to think the world was created with one already existing ¹⁴C ratio at pre-Flood version of 100 pmC, rather than created with virtually no ¹⁴C and just one ¹⁴N atom (or some few more) in creation week went ¹⁴C when Sun and stars were created. This means, the main reason pre-Flood things have highly inflated carbon dates is the incompletion of any kind of rise to any kind of 100 pmC or stable ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio. This means, after the Flood, ¹⁴C could rise quicker than before, since it was rising in relation to ¹²C, of which there was less (I think there were some other reasons ¹⁴C rose slower before the Flood too), but it would have still been rising, since still at no stable ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, where ¹⁴C production and decay match.

But there is one more reason that not just pre-Flood, but also early post-Flood dates are inflated. While after the Flood, ¹⁴C production would affect proportionally the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio as quickly as now, the ¹⁴C production was quicker than now. And yes, otherwise we would have had a still rising ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio and this would mean calibrating against different dates in the past would give different half lives and each of them would be very much shorter than the real one.

I have actually been challenged on this faster buildup, someone stating that it would have left all vertebrate life dead and only spiders surviving that holocaust of radiation. I then did check exactly how much, on different assumptions, the production would be faster. The fastest one I need right now is, for the c. 350 years from Flood to beginning of Babel and < 51 years from beginning to end of Babel is just about ten times faster production than now. But this also gives a scale of calibration.*

Let's take the Giza pyramids, the things said by Gavin Cox here:

The Giza pyramids were all built in the Fourth Dynasty, the ‘golden age’ of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Secular archaeologists date their building between 2589–2504 BC, which allows 85 years for their construction. ... The dates were obtained from ¹⁴C found in wood, reed and straw left by the pyramid builders. In 1984, dates were obtained by the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project for the Giza pyramids that made the pyramids 374 years older than they expected.

So, let's add up to get carbon dates ... 2589+374 = 2963 BC. Real date? Well, it would have been after Abraham's visit to the Pharao (Genesis 14 occurring in c. 1935 BC is connected to reed mats of En Gedi evacuation dated to 3500 BC), but before Joseph in Egypt (supposing Djoser as Joseph's Pharao, his coffin being carbon dated to 2800 uncalibrated, which is comparable to c. 1725 BC. Or even a bit later, since Joseph's Pharao didn't die immediately on arrival of Jacob and of Joseph's brethren.

1935 BC

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 BC

1778 BC

85.9766 pmC, so dated as 3028 BC

"2963 BC"

1756 BC

86.4346 pmC, so dated as 2956 BC

1711 BC

87.3468 pmC, so dated as 2811 BC

This is then a date between the real dates 1778 and 1756 BC. But how long did it take?

Secular archaeologists date their building between 2589–2504 BC, which allows 85 years for their construction. ... These dates were based on the ¹⁴C dating method, which obtained a wider-than-predicted range of dates for the various materials tested, namely 400 years.

The carbon date range for Göbekli Tepe is 9600 to 8600 BC. If this was Babel, it is probable that the real range of dates is c. 40 years, these taking up the majority of the years between 350 and 401 after the Flood (death of Noah to birth of Peleg). The ¹⁴C/¹²C still rising means, the dates are more inflated for the earlier than for the later real date, which prolongs the span beyond its real measure. It may be mentioned that I use a version of the LXX chronology, that of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ash Wednesday
17.II.2021

* My latest scale of calibration is:
Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html
As I take Babel = Göbekli Tepe, I argue this, among other articles, here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Work Ethic in the Neolithic and Genesis 11
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/02/work-ethic-in-neolithic-and-genesis-11.html
** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

Work Ethic in the Neolithic and Genesis 11

Creation vs. Evolution: What a Few Lines from Gilgamesh Epic Tell us of the Errors in Babylonian Theology · Aberrations of Protestant Work Ethic · Work Ethic in the Neolithic and Genesis 11 · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Denying Adam's Individuality : Babylonian · back to Creation vs. Evolution: Did Samuel Noah Kramer Prove the Ziggurat of Ur was the Tower of Babel?

It would seem, a certain group of people, sufficiently universal around the grandsons and greatgrandsons of Noah, and their chosen leader, were up to some work load heavy projects.

I leave the word to Graham Hancock who instead of surviving a Flood and getting from landing place to the West to Shinar (which Göbekli Tepe is part of, if it is Mesopotamia) imagines the people who commanded came from Atlantis and went to the East through most of the Mediterranean:

THE MYSTERY OF GÖBEKLI TEPE - Graham Hancock on London Real
London Real | 19th Sept. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5NvCiYGEI

Graham Hancock says the total of Göbekli Tepe (most not yet excavated) was 50 times bigger than Stonehenge. The outer and older circle of Stonehenge has, according to German wiki, a diameter of 115 meters. Does he mean 50 times that diameter or 50 times the surface covered by it? The first is less probable, but easier to calculate : 115*50 = 5750 meters. This would mean, 5750*5750*pi/4 = 25 967 226.777 sq meters or 25.9 sq kilometers, larger than strictly urban area of Paris. On the other hand, we can try 50 times the surface of Stonehenge. 115*115*pi/4 = 10 386.891 sq m, this times 50 = 519 344.536 sq m, making Göbekli Tepe half a sq km. With a radius of sqrt(50)*115 = 813.173 meters, nearly one km in diameter.

But he also says: "involving bringing a labour force, and organising that labour force, and feeding and watering them to create the world's first" 2:19 - 2:23 "perfectly North-South aligned building which involves accurate astronomy to do all of that and at the same time to invent" 2:23 - 2:32 "agriculture ..."

I would say, a mighty hunter of men was not allowing hs labour force to amble.

As this post will be the certain number I'll calculate below, I sign here before giving the gematria of his name./HGL

PS, at 3:10 he also states "their civilisation did not quite work" - if you look at Genesis 11:8 you will find that confirmed, as well as next verse agreeing with further words of Graham Hancock./HGL

So, what was the name and patronymic of this man? Nimrod Ben Kush, right? But all vowels are short, so are not marked. N(i)MR(o)D B(e)N K(u)SH. Let's take the levels hundreds, decades, units.
N(i)MR(o)D B(e)N K(u)SH - Resh, Shin, 200+300 = 500
N(i)MR(o)D B(e)N K(u)SH - Nun, Mem, Nun, Kaph, 50+40+50+20 = 160
N(i)MR(o)D B(e)N K(u)SH - Daleth, Beth, 4+2 = 6

What Does My Calibration Mean for pre-Bronze Greece?

I will not take into account all of the Greek area, since the first link I give is for South Greece only, actually even Franchthi only.

Dartmouth : The Southern Greek Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Sequence at Franchthi
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/?page_id=107

Paleolithic (ca. 20,000 – 8300 b.c.)

No certain gathering of plant foods is attested before ca. 11,000 b.c., although large numbers of seeds of the Boraginaceae family may come from plants gathered to furnish soft “bedding” or for the dye which their roots may have supplied. First appearing at ca. 11,000 b.c. are lentils, vetch, pistachios, and almonds. Then ca. 10,500 b.c. and still well within the Upper Paleolithic period appear a few very rare seeds of wild oats and wild barley.

Mesolithic (ca. 8300 – 6000b.c.)

The plant remains are much the same as those of the preceding Paleolithic period, with the exceptions that wild pears and a few peas begin to appear ca. 7300 b.c. and that wild oats and barley become common after 7000 b.c. The disappearance of the equid and caprine bones from the faunal assemblage and of seeds of the Boraginaceae family from the botanical assemblage, as well as an increase in the number of pistachios, all taking place ca. 8000 b.c., suggest a change of environment to open forests.

... Analysis of the human bone from elsewhere in the cave produced evidence for at least one other Mesolithic burial, this of the Upper Mesolithic phase, in another location, in addition to fragments of another 6 to 25 individuals sprinkled throughout Mesolithic strata within the cave. These bones represent individuals of all age groups (adults, adolescents, infants, neonates) and hence would appear to make the conclusion inescapable that the human groups that occupied the cave during the Mesolithic did so on a permanent basis. Otherwise, the existence of what amounts to a genuine cemetery here, one which accommodated the full spectrum of the social group occupying the cave, is difficult to explain.

Early Neolithic (ca. 6000 – 5000 b.c.) / Middle Neolithic (ca. 5000 – 4500 b.c.) / Late Neolithic (ca. 4500 – 400[0] b.c.) / Final Neolithic (ca. 4000 – 3000 b.c.)

Next link is about Mesolithic.

The Early Neolithic in Greece : 2 - The Mesolithic background
Catherine Perlès, Université de Paris X | Print publication year: 2001 | Online publication date: December 2009
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-early-neolithic-in-greece/the-mesolithic-background/A200E08DC42F5A46626FF54590D64A1B

Here, I shall use the term Mesolithic in its chronological sense, to designate early Holocene hunter-gatherer assemblages. The period under consideration spans between c. 9500 and 8000 BP uncalibrated, or c. 8700 to 7000 BC in calendar years. Detailed data-oriented presentations have been offered elsewhere (Perlès 1990a, 1995; Runnels 1995), so I shall focus on issues directly relevant to the problem of the origins of the Neolithic.

The most salient characteristic of the Mesolithic in Greece is how poorly it is known, and how few sites are recorded.

The Neolithic civilization (6800-3300 BC)
https://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/Neolithic-civilization-Greece.html

Neolithic Civilization is the long era, the main characteristics of which are farming , stock-breeding , permanent installation and the extensive use of stone , as well. ... [It] lasted more than three thousand years and is divided into five main phases, the Aceramic (6800-6500 BC) , the Early Neolithic (6500-5800 BC) ,the Middle Neolithic (5300-4500 BC) and the Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic (4500-3300 BC).

So, what are our dates ... uniformitarian ones. For Catherine Perlès, I'll assume that uncalibrated means Cambridge halflife and go with that. This means, I may be double interpreting the 7300 and 7000 BC in previous link.

2867 B.C.

90 years after Flood

11.9246 pmC, so dated as 20 467 B.C.

"20,000 BC"

2845 B.C.

14.5681 pmC, so dated as 18 745 B.C.

2666 B.C.

35.4608 pmC, so dated as 11 216 B.C.

"11,000 BC"

2644 B.C.

38.0408 pmC, so dated as 10 644 B.C.

"10,500 BC"

2621 B.C.

40.6138 pmC, so dated as 10 071 B.C.

2607 B.C.

Beginning of Babel

42.8224 pmC, so dated as 9607 B.C.

"9500 BC"

2585 B.C.

45.483 pmC, so dated as 9085 B.C.

2556 B.C.

End of Babel

48.1415 pmC, so dated as 8606 B.C.

2534 B.C.

49.4539 pmC, so dated as 8334 B.C.

"8300 BC"

2511 B.C.

50.7242 pmC, so dated as 8111 B.C.

"8000 BC"

2444 B.C.

54.5151 pmC, so dated as 7444 B.C.

"7300 BC"

2422 B.C.

55.7737 pmC, so dated as 7272 B.C.

2399 B.C.

57.0291 pmC, so dated as 7049 B.C.

"7000 BC"

2377 B.C.

58.4214 pmC, so dated as 6827 B.C.

"6800 BC"

2355 B.C.

59.6678 pmC, so dated as 6605 B.C.

"6500 BC"

2332 B.C.

60.9109 pmC, so dated as 6432 B.C.

2265 B.C.

64.6199 pmC, so dated as 5865 B.C.

"5800 BC"

2220 B.C.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B.C.

"5300 BC ?"

2198 B.C.

69.2256 pmC, so dated as 5248 B.C.

2086 B.C.

74.3062 pmC, so dated as 4536 B.C.

"4500 BC"

2019 B.C.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B.C.

"4000 BC"

1935 B.C.

Genesis 14

82.73 pmC, so dated as 3485 B.C.

1868 B.C.

84.1262 pmC, so dated as 3318 B.C.

"3300 BC"

I have here used the tables from this work:

New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

For the dates between Flood and Babel, I have not yet taken into account Mezzena man as either pre-or post-Flood. Either way, the carbon date 20 000 BC is a different time after the Flood than just 90 years, since either the Flood date is younger than 40 000 BP, and 2870 BC is dated as "19 870 BC", or there was after the Flood a longer time before radical rise in C14 occurred, and if 35000 BP is on 90 after Flood, 20000 BC is later.

All stone ages in Greece from Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic: 16 700 carbon years for 999 real years.

Neolithic only, Aceramic to Chalcolithic : 3500 carbon years for 509 real years.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril of Alexandria
9.II.2021

PS: I came to look this up over Greece in "6000 BC" being mentioned in 6000 BCE: Life in Greece & The Balkans - Neolithic Europe Documentary by Stefan Milo. As evidence of armed conflict abound, we must conclude that carbon dated 6000 BC came after Babel, when mankind was already divided into diverse communities sometimes in conflict with each other. One more reason to prefer Göbekli Tepe over Eridu's Abzu as Genesis 11 Babel (my table uses the Göbekli Tepe identification for reasons I had known before this video)./HGL