Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[gave link to previous]

Roger M Pearlman

Nice Hans.
we are not that far apart.
what is a couple hundred years among friends? :)
I will post the links to my books below.
so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?
whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim
in Abraham until the Exodus I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii

'The Moshe Emes' Torah and Science alignment series:

The Torah Discovery Chronology: 'Abraham until the Exodus'

Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1537302922
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L2T0LGK

'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'

Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205
Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0181C4Q1W

SPIRAL vs SCM cosmology model comparison free infographic
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312519866_SPIRAL_vs_SCM_cosmology_model_comparison_free_infographic

'The Recent Complex Creation Framework' six principles for science in maximum available context::

Paperback: http://amzn.com/1518640508
Kindle: http://amzn.com/B01CX9DMLE

Roger M. Pearlman

Torah Discovery Institute
20681 W. Valley Blvd.
Tehachapi CA. 93561

661-221-8588
rmp@torahdiscovery.org
www.torahdiscovery.org

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?"

BOTH. AND Iraq (with a few exceptions SW and SE)

Plain of Shinar = Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia = between Euphrates and Tigris.

Northern parts of Euphrates go in Turkey or even past.

"whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim"

Both Urfa near Göbekli Tepe (Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe][2]) "Potbelly Hill"[3] in Turkish, is an archaeological site atop a mountain ridge in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of modern-day Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa, and Şanlıurfa = Şanlı Urfa, venerable Urfa) and Woolley's Ur, further south, obviously, have the name Ur (in some old language Urfa is actually Ur-Fa). Before Woolley discovered that other Ur, it was Urfa in Turkey, Edessa, which was considered as Ur-Kasdim by both Jewish and Muslim traditions - probably, but that I don't know, by some Oriental Christian ones too.

"I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii"

Someone has mentioned that the stone slabs look like a launching ramp.

That (but nothing in Woolley's Ur or its Ziggurat that I know of) fits in with a rocket interpretation of T o B.

Note that Catholic Church Fathers - my authority next to the Bible - have not settled that T o B was a skyscraper. In St Thomas' Postilla to the book of Genesis (a disputed work, I think it is early and he was still learning Latin, he is using "ille" like "il"="the", which is faulty with Classical standards) it seems the opinions were divided on whether the words refer to what we call a skyscraper or to what we call a skyline.

But note that rockets are towers of which only the top reaches into heaven.

Göbekli fits rocketry better than Ziggurat would do.

As for your books, I'll freely share the links, but to the second I will only add that my solution to "distant starlight" is that what we know call stars to exclusion of planets, meteors and comets, i e what used to be called fix stars, are one light day away.

Being geocentric, I can interpret the phenomenon of Bessel discovered in 1838 - the one which is famously 0.75 c. arc seconds for Proxima alphae Centauri - as NOT being parallactic, but a dance of angelic movers (in time with the sun, but not in pace with the sun's dance around the ecliptic each year) and therefore as not implying alpha Centauri is "4 lightyears away".

This reduces the distant starlight problem to a non-problem. And that means, the larger technicalities on dating game are concerned with purely terrestrial things, like dendro, stratigraphy, carbon 14 and other radiometric.

A.j. Kukoleck

I posted an article a while back that said gobkeii was far younger. Im no expert pn it though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Obviously, if carbon dates are 10 000 BP and around, GT is far younger than that.

But why do you call it "gobkeii"?

What you might have been thinking of is, CMI (and probably ICR too) consider that the Stone Age (including Palaeolithic) is not just post-Flood, but post-Babel too.

If so finding T o B would mean finding sth with carbon dates reaching back to between Flood and probable post-Flood stone age sites, which is delicate.

I'd say part of stone age sites may be pre-Flood. Mousterian by Neanderthals was probably pre-Flood, since post-Flood there is a clear Neanderthal shortage.

I also consider that the initial geographic spread of stone age was not the same as the scattering after Babel.

If on the other hand you consider the stone age spread of geography including even Neanderthal race in Mousterian culture as after Babel, then GT would indeed be too young for Babel. And so would the Ziggurat of Ur, if they found any carbon datable material linking it to start of culture in Ur.

Roger M Pearlman

Hi AJ and Hans I have founding of GBK 5777-1657 = 4120 YA and the main hub for a couple hundred years +/- until UR-Casdim became the Hub leading up to the dispersion from Bavel.
part of it's function was an animal conservation as we transitioned the animals from the ark to the wild.
reference
Torah Discovery Chronology
volume one being Abraham until the Exodus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would not think G T was so beneficial.

Carbon dated history from 30 000 (c.) BP to 10 000 BP would be sufficient time for the animals to go back to wildlife before GT.

The purpose you give GT, I give cave arts like Altamira or Lascaux.

Also, it seems remnants of human sacrifice were found in GT, or at very best cremation, sth which Noah would not do.

Roger M Pearlman

Hi Hans, if Human sacrifice it could be from 400 +/- years after it's founding , so post dispersion from Bavel, which is already just post ice age, when some people came back and perhaps used the site for a while before moving on again.
So if carbon dates younger that first half of the ice age that may be why as
It would have still been an important place known to most or all even after we shifted to Ur Kasdim. mid ice age until early post ice age by the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems all of GT was post ice age or when it retired.

You would probably need them to dig deeper and find sth dated to 20 000 BC, but I think you won't.

I think ice age was up to T o B and dispersal, stone age men were partly expeditions (among others) trying to provide Nimrod with Uranium and failing and failing due to ice age.

In my redating, all of GT takes only 45 years.

Creation vs. Evolution : Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/10/graham-hancock-had-sth-to-say-on.html

Roger M Pearlman

Hi Hans-Georg Lundahl carbon dating only extrapolates back 70k +/- asserted years,
so if GT founded early ice age, it would no carbon date at all if deep time was true.
as the ice age started no more than 4120 years ago some items might carbon date
RCCF factors considered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If ice age was post flood, all of ice age would carbon date.

Flood dates range 20 000 - 50 000 BP.

So, all of ice age carbon dates.

Roger M Pearlman

based on this GT would be 3780 years old
but I think that is dating the resettlement of same by the end of the ice age after the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here are my dates, longer chronology, as you know:

9600 BC - 8600 BC - Carbon dates, I presume? I'll use my Fibonacci table*. 2778 av. J.-Chr. 40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr. 2599 av. J.-Chr. 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr. 2778 2599 0179 real years appear as 10328 06449 03879 carbon dated years 3879:1000 = c. 4. 179:x = 4? 179 = 4x 179:4 = 4x:4 45 = x So, was GT perhaps on stage for 45 years? Or were earliest times of it not recorded by any organic remains from them? Strictly non-organic ones can't be carbon dated.

Roger M Pearlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl you say 'all of ice age carbon dates'
RCCF: n it does not,
not after considering RCCF scientific factor calibration.
there is a reason things that carbon date that are over 3500 years have inflated results assuming a steady decay rate. as explained in

Torah and Science: Torah and Science Reconciled (Moshe Emes) Paperback – October 15, 2015
by Roger M Pearlman (Author)
http://amzn.com/1518640508

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am indeed assuming a steady decay rate, but it poses no problem for Christian chronology.

10328
06449
16777
08388 BC - just after GT, carbon dated.

2778
2599
5377
2688 BC - just after GT, Biblical (Roman Martyrology, my recalibration)

As to your book, there is not much preview, if you are no Amazon member. I am using this and similar programs available online which do presume a constant decay rate, and from than calculating how many extra years per how many % of modern carbon in atmosphere:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Roger M Pearlman

if you use a steady decay rate, and not RCCF calibration factors, what is the max years age of something that can carbon date for you?
current conventional 70k
with RCCF 4,120

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"current conventional 70k" = c. 68-74k

I just used that number for the skeleton La Ferrassie 2, a lady whom we might descend from, if she is in the inlaws of Japheth.

I take that as pre-Flood. If in Flood the carbon level was 3.9% of present level ... (midway between 20 000 and 50 000 dates, since 26 800 years ... I should have done lower, perhaps? ... no, see following)
If furthermore 4974 years ago (year of Flood) is leaving us 54.788 % from back then (which leaves 2,136732 % now from Flood year, which dates 31 800 BP) ...
Then carbon content lower than 2,136732 % may be pre-Flood.

70 000 BP = 0,021 %, and since oldest Flood remains are c. 50 000 BP, this means they are pre-Flood.

I have not gone over details of initial rise from perhaps no carbon 14 at all at Creation to Flood, except, contrary to rise after Flood, this rise must have involved much lower carbon 14 content being produced per year, proportionally to all carbon.

Therefore dates earlier than Flood carbon dating, I just consider "pre-Flood".

Update

After giving link to this as text above.

Roger M Pearlman

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hi Hans, in RCCF we start 1AM with the initial, very slow radiation build, due to the stronger pre-mabul magnetic field..so negligible and starting day 8 until 1656 AM anything that would carbon date would date 50k plus or as over 70k so not carbon date.
than a second gradual radiation build to approximate current levels staring by the Mabul year taking about 800 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mabul = Deluge?

Thing is, fossils from Deluge, like a Triceratops horridus (a dinosaur which could be the unicorn) do have measurable carbon dates.

For your model to work, you need most fossils to be post-Flood rather than from Flood.

Citing:

More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4

CMI : Triceratops soft tissue
Joel Tay answers a letter
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue

Footnote:

4.A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.

Roger M Pearlman

yes if those samples died / during the Mabul year 4120 YA when there was a short term burst of radiation exposure or even pre flood, to have a small residue which dates in the tens of thousands indicate, rather than not dating at all 60k +/- and over based on extrapolation of modern conditions, so no contradiction of RCCF

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And there is little room for most fossils to have been buried any time later.

If they are dated by other methods, they usually are called "millions of years" old.

Cretaceous and so. According to CMI, carbon dating them is very rare, but when they do, it is 20 000 - 50 000 years.