Jacket photograph: erratic boulder called the Gros Caillou (Lyon Croix-Rousse, height 254 m). In his ‘Geology of Lyon’, Roman (1926) attributes the Gros Caillou to the Mindel glacial period. David (1967) estimated that in the Lyon region, Würmian glaciers (70,000-20,000) spread more than those of Mindel (480,000-430,000) or Riss (180,000-100,000). The regional geological guide of G. Demarcq (1973) attributes this glacier to the Würm III period around -35,000. As the closest outcrops of this type of land are located in Haute Maurienne and Tarentaise, more than 175 km from Lyon, this erratic boulder must have been moved by glaciers during Riss toward -140,000 but according to the moving of ancient glaciers, based on the movement of moraines (rock debris), there is no evidence that any glaciers have reached less than 20 km from Lyon1 (with the exception of the Gros Caillou!).
As a result, explanations about erratic boulders are completly erratic.
Big Rock: The Okotoks Erratic. According to geologists, this enormous quartzite block, weighing about 16,500 tonnes and measuring about 41 x 18 x 9 metres, was carried here on the surface of a glacier. It came from the Rocky Mountains (Canada) in the Jasper area (a location 450 km away), probably between 18 and 10 thousand years ago. That means that Canada was completely under a sheet of ice 10,000 years ago (a deluge of ice). This explanation gives you the shivers to think of it.
A Dating of the Deluge is it Attainable?
Abstract. Historians consider the biblical account of the Deluge as a myth. However, this famous event occurred at the earliest times of recorded history (Sumerian King List). Today scientists believe in the last ice age called Pleistocene ending in 10,000 BCE, but there is no witness (prehistory) of this planetary cataclysmic event and its existence is based solely on the (controversial) interpretation of its consequences and
their dating. The existence of erratic blocks and the disappearance of mammoths are presented as evidence of the last glaciation, but contrary to what one might think 14C dating provides conflicting results. Moreover, the sudden extinction of mammoths (some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth) would have been spread over thousands of years! Likewise, during the last glaciation the sea level would have decreased by at least 140 m (which is currently explained by the melting of glaciers) but such variations of the sea level did not occur during previous glaciations. Dating obtained by calibrated 14C is considered absolute by most experts but confrontation with the Egyptian chronology, in which some dates are fixed by astronomy, reverses this widespread belief. This comparison shows that dates obtained by 14C calibrated by dendrochronology match those from astronomy until 2200 BCE but before this date increase exponentially. Thus the rate of 14C tends gradually to 0 around 3500 BCE, which implies an important consequence: before 3500 BCE 14C dating is no longer possible.
The biblical and Sumerian accounts of the Deluge are very similar (which occurred in year 600 of Noah or Ziusudra) and suppose a dating around 3170 BCE according to the Septuagint. The period 3170-2800 is very poorly documented, the only remarkable event is the construction of the Tower of Babel then its abandonment and the emergence of languages. According to Mesopotamian literature the ziggurat of Babylon called "temple of the foundation of heaven and earth" in Sumerian was dedicated to Marduk. Many scholars estimate that these mythological texts have no historical value, but several Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions have confirmed the antiquity of this ancient ziggurat and the name of its builder. Sumerian stories confirm the biblical version on four key points: a universal deluge; only one language at the origin; construction of the Tower of Babel and a sudden and simultaneous onset of languages (like Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, etc.). Human longevity seems to have remained constant over the entire period from 3100 BCE up to now, which contradicts the biblical data concerning the relatives of Abraham who would have lived, prior to 1600 BCE, much more than 130 years. However, contrary to what popular common sense suggests, human limits are difficult to set by science. Studies on human longevity provide amazing data in accordance with the Bible. Thus, for unexplained reasons, the maximum age at death is not constant but increases regularly and since 1960 there is an unexplained acceleration of the increase.
The transmission of much historical and chronological data (reigns, lifetimes, long periods, etc.) as well as many proper names, is necessarily flawed, unless one believes in an unlikely infallibility of scribes. Thus, ancient texts, that have been preserved in more than one copy, have been compared to determine how much variation occurs between manuscripts. This kind of study showed that the most stable texts surveyed are those containing ritual instructions, which have led, for example, to the exact transmission of the Torah in the late Second Temple period. The accuracy of the transmission of the biblical text can be checked according to the accuracy of its chronology and through the comparison between the sum of the intermediate values and the total value indicated in the text. Textual criticism now favours an anteriority of the Septuagint text Vorlage (H*) on the proto-Masoretic which comes from an overhaul of this Vorlage, including chronological data from the book of Genesis. According to the reconstruction of chronological data, Jewish corrections of the Hebrew text (preserved in the Septuagint) were performed in two steps: after the onset of the Book of Jubilees (c. 160 BCE) durations in Genesis 5:3-31 were reduced by 100 years and were adopted by a part of the Jews, such as Eupolemus and by the Samaritans, and afterward, at the Synod of Yabneh (c. 90 CE), durations in Genesis 11:10-26 were also reduced by 100 years and were canonized by the rabbis (Pharisees). There was no dispute since the priests (Sadducees) no longer existed, neither did scrolls of the temple (except some of them which were retrieved by Josephus thanks to emperor Titus in 70 CE).
Is it important to want to date the Flood? James Barr, editor of the Journal of Semitic Studies and author of ‘Escaping From Fundamentalism’ also wrote about this topic2: I fear that the reading of this paper may lead to my expulsion from this Society: for the Society since its foundation has been expressly devoted to “useful knowledge,” and it is doubtful whether either Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would have considered biblical chronology to be useful knowledge, or indeed to be knowledge at all. The only person I can appeal to for assistance is, perhaps, Sir Isaac Newton, whom they would both have respected. Newton devoted much time and effort to biblical chronology, and indeed at one stage, actually in his early thirties, made it his “dominant concern” and allowed it to crowd out his work on mechanics, optics, and such things. Moreover, I am encouraged by a happy recent event: namely, that the well-known scientist Stephen Jay Gould in a recent book has also gone back to the subject of biblical chronology and indeed has done me the honour of quoting my earlier writings on this matter. So perhaps I shall not be expelled after all. Anyway, what I want to say is that, though biblical chronology may in modern times seem to be an area for cranks and crackpots, in older times it occupied some of the greatest minds. Alongside Newton we may mention Martin Luther, who wrote a Supputatio annorum mundi or Reckoning of the Years of the World, and the great classical scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger (...) The striking thing about the biblical figures is the extreme longevity of the early humans according to the data used for biblical chronology. Adam was 130 years old when he had his son Seth and he lived 800 more after that. Methuselah was the record-breaker, living to 969 years of age. This sounds like a long time. But it was as nothing when compared with figures known from Mesopotamia. By the Sumerian King List, the first king ruled for 28,800 years and the second for 36,000. A total of eight kings took up 241,000 years, and then the Flood swept over the earth. This is known from modern discovery, but similar facts had been known from the writings (in Greek) of the Mesopotamian priest Berosus (believed to have had lived about 290 B.C.). This seems to indicate a common myth, with immensely long times culminating in a disastrous flood. The Hebrew figures for the first period are very much lower but still roughly proportional and belong to a similar legendary world. That is not to say that all the biblical figures are mythical, or “symbolic” as people often say. Many of the biblical figures, for example in the reigns of individual kings, may well be historical and accurate (...) This is significant for the question of modern “creationism,” which will certainly be in the minds of some of you. Modern creationists commonly want a world with a shorter duration than evolutionary theory requires, a world perhaps twelve thousand or fifteen thousand years old. Such a figure would be more like the biblical world but would not agree with it exactly or literally (...) In my opinion it was a big mistake for many of the mainline religious organizations when they opposed the creationists by saying that the Bible should not be taken literally. This is not what the creationists do. It is, on the contrary, what the churches and other organizations should do: that is, to argue that, in this respect, the Bible’s figures should be taken literally, because it is when they are taken literally that it becomes clear that they are not historically or scientifically true. Dating the deluge is in fact, at the present time, the touchstone of chronology and as chronology is the backbone of history, dating the Flood is therefore the touchstone of history in order to decide between myths and truth. Some would argue that the biblical flood must be a myth because scientists have found no evidence. Once again we have to define what is a proof. Thus what proves the existence of the last ice age called Pleistocene ending in 10,000 BCE because as there is no witness (that’s why this period is called prehistory) of this planetary cataclysmic event, its existence is based solely on the (controversial) interpretation of its consequences and their dating. The existence of erratic blocks and the disappearance of mammoths are presented as evidence of the last glaciation, but is it true?
Erratics were once considered evidence of a vast flood approximately 10,000 years
ago (according to radiocarbon measures), similar to the legendary floods described in the
texts of ancient civilizations throughout the world. Ancient legends of an epic flood come from many cultures including Mesoamerican, Sumerian (Epic of Gilgamesh), Hebrew (Old Testament) and Indian culture. In the 19th century, many scientists came to favour erratics as evidence for the end of the last glacial maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on top of glacial ice (some of them are traced for more than 3,000 km!)3. The glaciers continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were left in their present locations. In fact erratics only prove that a large part of the earth was under water about 10,000 years ago. If the existence of this fact is not disputed its dating is still very problematic and even contradictory. For example, the erratic block called Le Gros Caillou in Croix-Rousse (Lyon, France) shows that the dating of glaciers is based on speculation and varies according to the authors4. In his ‘Geology of Lyon’, Roman (1926) attributes the Gros Caillou to the Mindel glacial period. David (1967) estimated that in the Lyon region, würmian glaciers (70,000-20,000) spread more than those of Mindel (480,000-430,000) or Riss (180,000-100,000). The regional geological guide of G. Demarcq (1973) attributes this glacier to Würm III period around -35,000. As the closest outcrops of this type of land are located in Haute Maurienne and Tarentaise, more than 175 km from Lyon this erratic block would have been moved by glaciers5 during Riss toward -140,000. That (provisional) conclusion is doubly hypothetical because the reconstruction of ancient glaciers is mainly based on the movement of moraines (rock debris) and erratic blocks (which could also be explained by a worldwide flood) and even if one accepts this hypothesis there is no evidence that glaciers reached less than 20 kilometres from Lyon6. As the dating of rocks derived from the original interpretation it relies on measures of the 14C/12C ratio in carbon (or oxygen 18O/16O) of elements contained in the strata in which are housed moraines and erratic blocks. Contrary to what one might think 14C dating provides
results even more surprising and often contradictory.
The extinction of mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, steppe bison, giant deer, the caves lion, caves bear, caves hyena, to speak only of the larger species, is linked to the end of the last glaciation toward -10,000. That mass extinction of many species is difficult to explain7 and even paradoxical because the global warming from -10,000 should have promoted the growth of vegetation needed for feeding these prehistoric animals. Furthermore, such climate changes were nothing new; numerous very similar warming episodes had occurred previously within the ice age of the last several million years without producing comparable megafaunal extinctions, so why should the last climate change have played a decisive role? In addition, the time and duration of that extinction cannot be dated. Most paleontologists located it about -10,0008 but some mammoths were still alive about -17009! The extinction of mammoths would have been spread over thousands of years. This new hypothesis has two problems: the cause of the extinction becomes incomprehensible and graveyards of mammoths show that these animals likely died suddenly. For example, a “cemetery” of about 156 mammoths was discovered10 (between 1970 and 1980) on the banks of the river Berelekh (Siberia). Despite the fact that many mammoths died in the same place gives the impression of a simultaneous death due to catastrophe such as a flash flood, a tusk from the base of the bone layer gave a date of 14,000 years ago, while scraps of skin and ligament from another spot were dated to 16,300 years ago11. Some mammoths were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously, not over a long period of time. As we can see all these data are contradictory. Is the biblical explanation better? Biblical explanations are usually rejected by the scientific community for the following reasons12: Positions and claims of creationists are incompatible with the advances of modern science, which proves that the Bible is not a book of science. Affix the label of scientist to creationism label is a real intellectual imposture and scientists need to inform the general public (...) The rejection of creationism from the scientific community is therefore a movement of liberation to archaic ideas and unsuited to the modern world, ideas are also a literal interpretation of Scripture rejected by the majority of believers (...) What to malicious attacks against science? Further research, whatever happens. To disseminate the results of numerous scholarly articles and popular mass market, accompanying documentary films and lectures. Using new communication technologies such as the Internet, among others. Maintain and develop education often compromised data science and its specific methods. This must be especially true mechanisms of evolution. Indeed, ignorance is an ally of literalists and revisionist (...) If such a flood had existed, geological evidence would be multiple. However, there is nothing (...) Firstly, geologists showed that marine transgression (rising of the sea level) in Lower Mesopotamia, a few hundred kilometres of the city flooded Ur, the capital of the Sumerians, about 5000 BCE (...) The floods mentioned in other mythologies could transmit the memory of the devastating effects of the rapidly melting ice of the last glaciation. Indeed, the latter has caused around the world, giant floods of streams, rivers and lakes, recorded by the geological record near the glacier, whose thickness can exceed 2000 meters. But it was not a universal flood. It is ironic that despite the enormous disproportion of media these scientists present themselves as victims of some “fundamentalists”. The socalled flood deception is explained through a surprising reasoning: since the geological record proves the existence of generalized giant floods then there was no universal flood (where is the logic?)! Similarly, thousands of entirely frozen mammoths found in Siberia are explained as follows: The death of mammoths can often be related to surface melting, in summer, permafrost, frozen ground in surface over thirty meters in Siberia. Their bodies then sink into the mud, where they cannot escape because of their weight (page 360). How can we imagine some herds of thousands of mammoths advancing calmly on the Siberian permafrost, disappearing gradually by getting bogged down in the mud? Such a scenario does not seem credible unless supposing a mammoth congenital stupidity.
The sudden disappearance of many animal species as well as moving erratic blocks would fit better with the biblical explanation of the Flood. The flood story is presented as an authentic history in the Gospels (Mt 24:37-39, Lk 17:26-27). According to the Bible there was at the origin some waters upon the earth (sea and ocean) and waters above the earth in the form of a vault of water (Gn 1:7). At the time of the Flood, in the year 600 of Noah, the vault of water fell to earth as rain for 40 days and all the mountains were covered and all living creatures disappeared with the exception of Noah and his ark (Gn 17-23). The disappearance of the vault of water (2Pe 3:5-6) resulted in a new climate (Gn 8:22) and its collapsing on the earth's crust led to the emergence of big mountains (Ps 104:6-8), which is consistent with the model of Pangaea in the plate tectonics. In the past the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that: there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles [2,400 m.] deep (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105). With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and "the floodgates of the heavens," untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth (Gn 7:11). This may have caused tremendous changes in earth's surface. The earth's crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km and 160 km thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometres in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 per cent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth's crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressure alone was equal to "2 tons per square inch", sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly13. Not only a universal flood would better explain the sudden and simultaneous disappearance of many animal species, but it would solve the following two enigmas:
> During the last glaciation the sea level would have decreased by at least 140 m14 (up to 170 m)15. The rise is currently explained by the melting of glaciers16, but it does not seem that these variations of the sea level (so important) occurred during the previous glaciations.
> The concentration of 14C during the last glaciation was much lower than at present17, this fact has been highlighted by dendrochronology (measure of age by the rings of a tree). Scientists suppose that the long-term variation correlates with fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength (the geomagnetic moment). The geomagnetic moment affects 14C production because cosmic rays are charged particles and are therefore deflected by a magnetic field. If the magnetic moment is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the earth and production of 14C will fall; if low, the production rises. This explanation is contradicted by measurements of changes in the geomagnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is the magnetic field that extends from the Earth's inner core to where it meets the solar wind, a stream of energetic particles emanating from the Sun. Its magnitude at the Earth's surface ranges from 25 to 65 μT. It is approximately the field of a magnetic dipole tilted at an angle of 11 degrees with respect to the rotational axis — as if there were a bar magnet placed at that angle at the centre of the Earth. However, unlike the field of a bar magnet, Earth's field changes over time because it is generated by the motion of molten iron alloys in the Earth's outer core (the geodynamo) and it is influenced by the Sun's magnetic field. Variations of the geomagnetic field are very complex because they involve its intensity, its inclination (latitude and longitude) and its declination (height). The results of the magnetic field measured at Paris18 have shown that, from -1000 to 2000, its average intensity varied from 45 to 85 μT19, its inclination varied from 55° to 75° and its declination from -30° to +30° (see below). Measures in different parts of the world20 have shown that variations in the magnetic field intensity between -5000 and 2000 are similar, with the same fluctuations, to those measured in Paris.
If we compare these curves with the results of measurements of calibrated 14C ages we see that (figures on the right) the variations of the geomagnetic field between -1000 and 2000 have no significant effect on the average level of 14C (deduced from the gap between the calibrated and uncalibrated curves)21. According to the curve of carbon-14 calibrated by dendrochronology the age of the samples increases gradually from -1000 to -5000 (1000 years too old in -5000) thus the level of carbon-14 gradually decreased from -1000 to -5000, which would imply a gradual increase in the Earth's magnetic field during this period, when in fact it decreased slightly (average value K08). In conclusion, magnetic field variations do not allow one to explain the gradual decrease in the rate of carbon-14 from -1000 to -5000.
According to the biblical account, the earth was surrounded by a vault of water before the Deluge (perhaps in the stratopause where the temperature is at present around 0°C). Now water has the remarkable property of stopping neutrons very effectively since a screen of 23 mm thick stops 90% of neutrons (and a screen of 46 mm thick stops 99%), as demonstrated by nuclear pools. If there was water, 14C production could not take place, which would explain the decrease in 14C before -1000 (decreasing up to 0). Dating pharaohs' reigns both by carbon-14 and astronomy shows (by extrapolation) that the rate of carbon-14 fell to 0 around -3500 +/- 500. The orientation of the pyramids aligned with the stars (Dynasties IV and V) provides an astronomical dating and wooden sarcophagi (and other objects with carbon) allow a radiocarbon dating.
DATING THE DELUGE BY CARBON 14
In principle the method of radiocarbon dating is very simple since it is based on the
following reaction:
(…)
This reaction takes place in the upper atmosphere but over time an equilibrium is established in the layer of ambient air (98.89% of 12C; 1.11% of 13C; 1.18 10-12 of 14C). As carbon is present in the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed by all living beings, the rate of 14C is the same for all organisms that breathe carbon dioxide. When an organism dies the equilibrium with the atmosphere stops and the number of 14C atoms in its body decreases because of its natural disintegration (13.65 disintegrations/min/1g). It suffices to measure the rate of residual 14C and compare it to the current average rate knowing that the number of 14C atoms decreases by half every 5730 years22 following an exponential decrease. For example, if a residue has only 50% of the average rate in 14C its age can be estimated around 5700 years, if its residual rate is 25% then its age is 11,400 years, etc. If the initial average rate in 14C was 20% lower (80% instead of 100%) that would induce an artificial aging of the sample by about 2000 years (13,400 years instead of 11,400). And a variation of +/- 1% of the initial 14C modifies the age of the residue +/- 100 years (the effects of this change are not linear but exponential).
To correct these variations in 14C versus time the actual age obtained thanks to
dendrochronology is used to establish calibrated 14C curves. The method is based on the
assumption that neutron production (average value) is substantially constant, but studies23
have shown that the rate of 14C has been modified by long-term factors such as:
O Isotopic fractioning: the lightest carbon atoms have chemical reactivity a little larger than the heavier ones, so that at the end of the chain of reactions there may be an enrichment (or depletion) of some isotopes compared to the natural environment. This can lead to a correction of 400 years.
O Reservoir effect: the surface of the ocean absorbs a large part of atmospheric carbon dioxide which when dissolved travels along the depths of the great ocean circulation loop.
Injected in depth in the North Atlantic, it returns to the surface after more than a thousand years (thus 14C ocean is delayed 400 years versus that of the atmosphere, thus aging all the dates by 400 years). This effect is significant because the reservoir of Oceanographic carbon is 40 to 60 times greater than that of the atmosphere24.
O Earth's magnetic field: it deflects charged particles from cosmic radiation, such as protons, which are at the origin of C14 (14C production is 5 times greater at the poles than at the equator). This field has varied by about a factor 2 in the past, which may age some dates of 50%.
O Magnetic field from the solar wind: the primary cosmic flux is largely modulated by the magnetic field from the interplanetary solar wind which fluctuates during the solar cycle of 11 years, leading to a correction of dates of +/- 5%.
O Burning of fossil materials: the massive release of carbon dioxide from (industrial) combustion of fossil fuel poor in 14C may age the environment artificially. A shrub that grows along highway, for example, can be "conventionally dated" from -10,000 or older. Similarly, on the flanks of volcanoes, fumaroles emission can locally enrich the atmosphere in ancient carbon.
O Reuse of materials: construction timber being a precious material, it was often reused. Thus the date of construction differs from that of the original wood.
O Atomic explosions: those of 1963 increased the level in 14C by 10%.
O Cosmic proton production of galactic origin: most of the galactic particles are accelerated in the shocks of supernova remnants for only a few thousand years25.
Measurements of 14C rate are unusable in its raw state to provide a dating, they must be calibrated by dendrochronology. Correspondence between the uncalibrated years BP and calibrated years BCE is complex, in addition, some parts of the curve are unusable such as the period 800-400 BCE called 'plateau of Hallstatt26' (because the value remains constant in years BP). Consequently reading the curve is difficult. The city of Rehob, for example, was burned in 2775 BP (stratum VI of the destruction), according to 14C dating27, corresponding to 970-960 BCE, during the (only) campaign of Shoshenq I in Palestine (as attested by the biblical text of 1Kings 14:25). Finkelstein and Piasetzky28 have reinterpreted these data to lower the date to 925-915 BCE (figure below on the right) to conform it to the "classic" chronology of Thiele (with many supposed and wrong co-regencies)29. However, this solution is unlikely, because differences in duration between the layers VI-V and V-IV would pass without reason from 45 and 50 years (ratio of 1) to 12 and 43 years (amazing ratio of 3.5). Such asymmetry in duration between the strata is not realistic30.
This example of calibrated 14C dating shows that the accuracy is about +/- 10 years over the period 1000-900 but overlapping areas can induce an uncertainty of at least 50 years for unfavourable locations. Also be aware that these measures are generally a cloud of points (statistically equated to a Gaussian curve). Furthermore, aberrant measurements are systematically ignored31 and rarely published to avoid reinforcing the sceptics32. In addition, interpretation of 14C measurements is complicated by the frequent presence of unknown contamination. The proportion in carbon 14 (in time) is reconstructed from measurements calibrated by dendrochronology. The result is not a linear correlation, but a sinuous curve33 with an increasing gap for dates before 1500 BCE:
Carbon-14 dates are noted BP (Before Present) and BC (Before Christ) with the
equivalence:
age BC = age BP - 1950. Differences in dates come from variations in
14C
rate, according to the two opposite curves34
(Δ14C
= difference in 14C
‰). We note that the short-term variations in Carbon-14 seem
chaotic (similar to a background noise) and in the long term there is
a growing deficit from 1400 BC (e.g. Δ14C
≈ 8% in -3600, which corresponds to a gap of about 800 years).
Datings before -10,000 by Carbon-14 are contradictory and their
interpretation is controversial35
(Thermoluminescence
measurements give the same surprising results)36.
As these calibration curves date back well before -5000, this induces
a question: how is it possible to measure the rings of a tree 7000
years old? In reality there is no such tree so old, the current
record is a Bristlecone Pine in Nevada, called Prometheus, dated
-2898 (to +/- 18 years) by counting the rings, consequently an
artifice is used. The thickness of the rings depends on the climate
of the year in which they are formed (the reality is much more
complex because of frequent changes of climate in the past)37,
giving a series of rings resembling a kind of bar code. It then
suffices to put end to end the series obtained from different strains
of ancient trees, as is done with a set of dominoes (figures below).
It
is obvious that a particular sequence originating from a strain can
be inserted in several places among the series, because of its short
length from 100 to 300 years. In this case (very common), how does
one choose the right position among the various possibilities? The
answer is simple: depending on its probable position according to the
carbon-14 chronology38,
as recognized a specialist39:
It
is not uncommon that the various calculations involved do not
absolutely agree. One must then decide. In almost all cases, the date
finally chosen is always chosen in the best calculated proposals
(...) it is very difficult to date an isolated wood less than 100
rings. With the support of radiocarbon, which sets a chronological
range from 150 to 300 years, one can go down to 80 rings. Below this
"length" the risk is great of falling into a well-known
trap type, which is: the "beautiful" relationship in a
"wrong" position. This
means that if a set of rings is misplaced in the chain (see the
figures above), all the calibration is distorted. The loop is closed
and thus carbon-14 in fact serves to calibrate carbon-1440.
There is clearly a failure in method.
Dating obtained by calibrated carbon-14 is considered absolute by most experts but confrontation with the Egyptian chronology, which some dates are fixed by astronomy, reverses this widespread belief41. This comparison42 shows that: dates obtained by carbon-14 calibrated (by dendrochronology) match to those from astronomy until -2200 (errors of measurement are not significant); before -2200 carbon-14 dating ages historical dates exponentially about 100 years around -2200 and 500 years around -2600. Radiocarbonists obviously offer to Egyptologists to adjust their dates by their own.
Carbon-14 dating provides a relative Egyptian chronology43 but the astronomical dating from the precise orientation of the pyramids44 of Dynasties IV and V (with the exception of that of Khephren, which is interpreted differently45) gives an absolute chronology (below). The accuracy of astronomical dates is about +/- 5 years46 based on a calculated difference of 19" per year due to the precession of the equinoxes. This angle variation is very low but if a building is now aligned on the pole star (celestial north), in 95 years it will be shifted relative to this star by approximately 0.5 degree (or 30'), which is the apparent diameter of the moon.
The duration as well as order of the reigns according to astronomy is in good agreement with the data coming from the Turin Canon (TC) except for Snefru. However even in this case the astronomical dating is better because it is confirmed by the number of cattle censuses, which were not bi-annual, as Egyptologists claim. The reconstruction47 of the early years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi (2323-2285) shows that cattle censuses were on a ratio48 of 1.7 (= 30/18). The ratio of "years after" compared to normal years, for the first 8 years of the reign is 0.37 (= 11/30) the same ratio, 0.36 (= 9/25) of intercalary years of the 25 years lunar cycle. The date of the first sed festival (= 30 years of reign) of Pepi I coincided with his 18th livestock census49, which confirms the theoretical ratio of 1.7 (=25/14) between census years and regnal years (= 30/18). Years "after" (= intercalar) are consistent with reign durations50 according to the equation: minimum duration of reign = number of census years x 1.7. The comparison is excellent between the durations calculated by astronomy and those from the Turin Royal Canon, which confirms the reliability of this document on chronology (but values from Manetho are often too high). A few durations in the Turin Canon (TC*) have been corrected. Snefru's reign is dated 2526-2480 and lasted 46 years, which is in agreement with the minimum length of 41 years (= 24x1.7) coming from the number of censuses. First years of the reign of Djedkare Isesi (the arrangement of "intercalary years" is too incomplete to allow a reconstruction of the 25-year lunar cycle):
The
ancient harbour of Kheops (Wadi el-Jarf) delivered some papyri
describing shipments of stones for his pyramid of which the highest
date, corresponding to the end of his reign, is: after
the 13th
census51
(=
year 23, like in the TC), which confirms the ratio 1.7 (=23/13)
between the years of reign and the number of censuses. If this ratio
was 2, Kheops' reign (50 years in Herodotus II:127!) would have
lasted 28 years instead of 23 years.
Mesopotamian
chronology can be reconstructed up to Sargon of Akkad. This period
has few synchronisms which are precisely datable by astronomy
(highlighted in blue) but reigns duration of the dynasties of Akkad,
Uruk IV-V and Ur III are accurately known52
furthermore
Sargon, Iš'ar-Damu King of Ebla and Pepi I were contemporaries53.
The chronology of dynasties IX to XII is locked to the beginning of
the XIIth
in
1975 BCE and based on the sum of regnal years. The duration of the
dynasties VII and VIII was brief because, according to Manetho, 70
kings would have ruled 70 days each (70x70 days = around 13 years) or
a period about 8? years of instability (2126-2118?).
The
relative chronology of the Ist
Dynasty
is very approximate due to uncertainty in
the names of pharaohs as well as the length of their reigns55:
These chronologies (above) of the Ist dynasty were reconstructed using data from Manetho (Man.), calibrated carbon 14 dating (C14 calib.), the Turin Canon (TC) and the Palermo Stone (PS). Although the Sothic rising during the reign of Djer (2774 BCE) is known56 it is not used for dating. These chronologies are improved if they are based on the astronomical dating of the reign of Snefru (2523-2479) and using a mean reign of 15 years (calculated from the 3rd Dynasty) for the reigns of the two first dynasties. The 2nd dynasty includes several pharaohs at Abydos in parallel with those at Memphis57 and the reigns calculated from the Palermo Stone are hypothetical58 (PS*) or speculative (bracketed). The reign of 40 years assigned to Ninetjer seems excessive compared with other pharaohs of the IInd Dynasty, in addition, it has no Sed festival (celebrated when a reign is above 30 years)59.
According
to the above reconstruction, the reign of Djer is situated
near -2800. The Djer's plate (opposite figure) mentions the oldest
known heliacal rising of Sirius60,
which was exceptional because
this
event occurs every year (around 17 July at that time). This
astronomical phenomenon is depicted at top right by three symbols:
the sun Râ above a cow with a feather on her head amidst of two
horns and above a papyrus swamp. The star amidst of 2 horns (bottom
left) symbolizes a heliacal rising of Sirius (the brightest star in
the sky) associated with the goddess Hathor, just after a rising of
Orion (associated with Horus) and after a rising of Venus (the
brightest planet in the solar system), associated with the goddess
Isis. Maat feather on her head symbolized the goddess Isis and the
two horns symbolized the goddess Hathor (bottom right).
According to the Decree of Canopus (dated 238 BCE) the rising of Sothis (Sirius) and the rising of Isis (Venus) could occur at the same time. This extremely rare coincidence occurs only once every 243 years61 which explains why it was noteworthy to Egyptians. In addition, the coincidence between the beginning of the Nile’s flooding at the summer solstice (17 July)62 and the heliacal rising of Sirius63 was performed only at Buto in 2774 BCE64 (18 July). By chance there was also the heliacal rising of the new moon65 on I Akhet 1 (= 18 July)66. All these coincidences must have impressed the Egyptians. The double heliacal rising of Sirius and Venus was later represented by a heron associated with Isis with a star above the head (rising of Venus) at the same level of Sothis’ ankles (rising of Sirius). The origin of the Egyptian civil calendar is difficult to establish because of the lack of documents. However as the name of the first season (of 4 months each) was Akhet “flooding” it is logical to conclude that this calendar started with the flooding of the Nile, which coincided itself with the summer solstice (17 July at that time). The names of the next two periods of the calendar: Peret “offspring” and Shemu “heat”, are also in accordance with the seasons. From the 1st dynasties the sign of the year appears on ivory labels which implies the existence of a calendar and also annals were held from the beginning of historical times. On the ivory plate of king Djer there is a connection between the heliacal rising of Sirius in Buto (north of Heliopolis), represented as a cow (Hathor) and the beginning of the flood recorded by the sign Akhet. The hieroglyph depicting a sun (Ra‘) in the middle of 2 cow horns is read wpt-r‘ and means “beginning of the year”. Consequently the three hieroglyphs on Djer's plate (top right) means: Beginning of the year (sun Râ between 2 cow horns), rising of Sirius (Hathor cow) and rising of Venus (Isis’ feather) at the beginning of the flooding (I Akhet 1), which occurred only on 18 July 2774 BCE (see Annex).
By extrapolating the previous results, the C14 dating gives older reigns in an exponential way (4 times the gap, 7454 BCE instead of 3214 BCE through astronomy):
Despite measurements of the lengths of the 1st dynasty reigns by calibrated C14 being
imprecise67 (+/- 120 years) they age reigns toward -2800 by about 300 years compared to
the Egyptian chronology anchored on the Sothic rise of Djer.
From
-2100 the difference in carbon-14 (Δ14C:
115 years <=> 1 ‰) increases much
faster if one takes into account the additional correction calculated from the dates obtained by astronomy. For example, the difference of dating by means of astronomy versus C14 (gap3) is 250 years in 1855 BCE but 1115 years in 2774 BCE. As a result we obtain a corrected Δ14C* curve in red (the calibrated ΔC14 curve is in grey):
The equation of the curve showing 14C rate (in %) versus time (t in years) is of the form: A = A0(1-e-(t+t0)/b). Calibrating the 14C measures by the dates from the Egyptian chronology based on astronomical dating gives the following curve68 (the reliability of dating by astronomy is assessed in the Annex):
Extrapolated part of the curve (before -2800) shows that the rate of C14 tends gradually to 0 around -3500, which implies an important consequence: before 3500 BCE calibrated C14 dating is no longer possible. Thus, because the carbon-14 dating is not calibrated by calculations based on astronomy the results are nonsensical because millions of years or even hundreds of millions of years appear. For example A piece of wood is fossilized in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia, which most geologists date to the middle Triassic, about 225 to 230 million years ago. The wood was dated by Geochron (a commercial dating laboratory) using the C14 dating method. They determined its age to be only 33,720 +/- 430 years Before Present69 (contamination by recent microbes or fungicannot explain the discrepant age). Another example comes from the polystrate fossils. Tree trunk fossils are frequently found cutting across many geological layers70 —hence the name polystrate fossils (poly = many; stratum = layer). It is not possible that polystrate fossils were buried gradually over many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years because the top part of any tree would have rotted away before it could be protected by sediment. Polystrate fossils point to rapid burial and are evidence in favour of the reality of the global Flood recorded in the Bible. This is how Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, trained under strict Lyellian uniformitarianism, describes some polystrate fossil tree trunks (below) that he illustrated in his book71: If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous. Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10,000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous72.
Derek Ager was no Bible believer, in fact he was disparaging of creationists, yet he could see, in spite of his training, that the geological evidence pointed to rapid sedimentation and burial. Further, although sedimentation looked ‘uniform and continuous’, he assumed that there had to be ‘long breaks in sedimentation’. Why? To preserve the idea that life on the earth is billions of years old (theory of evolution) —in spite of the evidence. In addition, Geologists have also found that some of the larger upright fossil trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In these cases, the trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface. Until they either died or were overwhelmed by the accumulating sediments (through millions of years!), these trees would likely have continued to regenerate by adding height and new roots with each increment of sediment, eventually leaving several meters of former "trunk" buried underground as sediments accumulated. For these geologists the fact that some trees continued growing during millions of years is scientifically logical!
Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited. Over "millions and millions of years" of heat and pressure generated by the subsequently deposited overlying marine sediments, the peat is thought to have metamorphosed into coal. The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution’s interpretation of earth history is true. Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this remarkable fossil73, but evolutionists routinely ignore it. The name polystrate ("many layers") is used only by creationists. You will seldom find it in the standard literature, even though the related concepts are easily grasped. Unfortunately, National Geographic requires a not-insignificant fee for the use of its photographs, and only on occasion was this one (opposite photo) used by creationists. In addition to dating, the fact of finding a scientific explanation for the formation of fossils, is another source of troubles for geologists. For example some sea fossils have been found on mountaintops, consequently, these indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, as teaches the Bible. The ammonites slab of Digne-les-Bains (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence) is a remarkable natural site consisting of a rock stratum containing a large number of fossilized ammonites. This slab inclined at 60° is made of limestone (photo below). It has approximately 1500 ammonites of which 90% are of the species Coroniceras multicostatum dating from Sinemurian (Jurassic). These ammonites can reach a diameter of 70 cm. One can also see some nautilus, Belemnites, scallops and other bivalves. It is estimated that the thickness of the deposit to 20 cm was set up over a period of about 100,000 years.
As one can see the slab (44°7'10" N, 6°14'2" E) is on a mountaintop (c. 700 m). This means that the Alps were under the ocean (65 million years ago)! However, analysis of fossil allows an even more startling conclusion, not only the Alps were under water but the thickness of this layer of water would have been between 3,000 and 5,500 meters. The appearance of these fossils helps us to understand the sedimentation conditions. The excellent preservation of the shells shows information regarding the marine dynamism having presided over the deposition conditions: a stirred medium, such as a beach, coast, where wave action is strongly felt, tends to break the shells and leads to accumulation of fragments, forms deposits in the form of gong or coquina. The vast majority of the shells of the slab being intact, almost, this has led to the hypothesis of a depositional environment quieter, deeper, and longer preserved. In addition, this deposition is carried out above the Carbonate Compensation Depth (CCD), and therefore at an average depth74. Paradoxically, despite their making fun of the biblical Flood, which says: He has established the earth on its foundations; It will not be moved from its place forever and ever. You covered it with deep waters as with a garment. The waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; At the sound of your thunder they ran away in panic —Mountains ascended and valleys descended— to the place you established for them. You set a boundary that they should not pass, that they should never again cover the earth (Ps 104:4-9), geologists yet use the same explanation for the formation of the earth. In fact the main disagreement between those who believe in geology and those who believe in the Bible is the dating of a worldwide deluge (called Paleo-Tethys Ocean): several tens of millions of years for geologists versus several thousands of years for believers. Most of the time the main reason to make one’s choice is not based on scientific evidence (because there isn’t any) but rather on belief in creation (Bible) or in the theory of evolution. In the last chapter of his famous book: On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin explains: As this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and inferences briefly recapitulated. That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, —that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind,— that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable, —and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. Yet, as we have reason to believe that some species have retained the same specific form for very long periods, enormously long as measured by years, too much stress ought not to be laid on the occasional wide diffusion of the same species; for during very long periods of time there will always be a good chance for wide migration by many means. A broken or interrupted range may often be accounted for by the extinction of the species in the intermediate regions. It cannot be denied that we are as yet very ignorant of the full extent of the various climatical and geographical changes which have affected the earth during modern periods; and such changes will obviously have greatly facilitated migration. As an example, I have attempted to show how potent has been the influence of the Glacial period on the distribution both of the same and of representative species throughout the world. We are as yet profoundly ignorant of the many occasional means of transport. With respect to distinct species of the same genus inhabiting very distant and isolated regions, as the process of modification has necessarily been slow, all the means of migration will have been possible during a very long period; and consequently the difficulty of the wide diffusion of species of the same genus is in some degree lessened. As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climate and other conditions of life change insensibly in going from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few species are undergoing change at any one period; and all changes are slowly effected. I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which will at first probably exist in the intermediate zones, will be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; and the latter, from existing in greater numbers, will generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which exist in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties will, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated. “We have reason to believe” is a philosophical or religious allegation, not a scientific demonstration.
Because many clever people believe in the theory of evolution, which it is usually used to justify millions of years in dating, it is necessary to understand why such a theory is not scientific at all but rather a modern fairy tale: once upon a time (several millions of years ago) in a faraway country (somewhere in Africa) appeared by chance, thanks to a very tiny coincidence but possible statistically (natural selection), a new species: the first man (Pongo-Tarzan) and, in the same place at the same time, the first woman (Cheetah Lucy). This theory (of evolution) is scientifically impossible. First, the concept of species, which is the core of the theory, is not defined and the concept of subspecies is deliberately confused with the concept of varieties or races. The only scientific definition of species is interfertility (ironically, as in the Bible), but it involves a contradiction because two different species cannot have a common ancestor because the species barrier would have been breached. For example, there are many varieties (or races) of dogs which had a common ancestor "a couple of dog", similarly, there are many varieties (or races) of cats which had a common ancestor "a couple of cat", but dogs and cats of today were not able to have a common ancestor "a couple of dog-cat" because there has never been interfertility between dogs and cats. In the same way, there are many varieties (or races) of apes which had a common ancestor "a couple of ape", similarly, there are many varieties (or races) of human beings which had a common ancestor "a couple of human being", but monkeys and human beings of today were not able to have a common ancestor "a couple of ape-man" because there has never been interfertility between apes and human beings. Apes and human beings belong to two distinct species, not to two distinct varieties (or subspecies). In fact even the process of the evolution is not defined, because the “natural selection (a fairy godmother)”, which is its main cause, is only based on an unpredictable random process involving complex favourable/unfavourable features. Consequently, paleontologists are always able to predict the past but never the future. In fact, natural selection is really a wicked fairy because each year many species disappear but absolutely none appear. Biologists often argue that new species of flies, mice or mosquitoes have emerged, but this is completely wrong because they replace the words "varieties/ races/ kinds" with the word "species". As a result the common ancestor of the present fly was “a couple of fly”. According to the theory of evolution, there should be millions of intermediate species because there are millions of species. These intermediate species (shown in dotted lines in the family trees of species) are called “transitional species” or “missing links”. If you ask a biologist: How many “missing links” did you find, he will answer first: hundreds (or thousands), but if you ask him to give you exactly one demonstrable example, he will be in the inability to respond clearly. Besides, if you read some books specifically written to defend the theory of evolution and fight against creationist explanations, you will notice that these biologists use an impressive Newspeak in order to fool their readers. For example, modern paleontology has often classified Archaeopteryx as the most primitive bird, and several authors have done so75. However now it is not thought to be a true ancestor of modern birds, but rather, a close relative of that ancestor76 (“a cousin”), which means nothing scientifically. Each prominent biologist has his own definition for classifying the Archaeopteryx among birds, for some it is “a kind of missing link”, for others a “transitional species” which would be a “brother group (sic)77”, a “close relative”, a “cousin”, etc., according their imagination (and yours). For evolutionists, the Life Chain is a chain without intermediate links because they all have been lost because of bad luck. In the same way, fairies and witches existed in the past but we have no more trace today (probably because they only existed in fairy tales).
The most recent archaeological research on the prehistory of the Middle East78 trace the presence of man toward -600,000, homo sapiens toward -65,000 then Sumerian (Kish I) and Egypt (Dynasty I) civilizations simultaneously occurring toward -3000. This presentation of scientific appearance is actually a clever evolutionary propaganda because Paleolithic man never existed, the skeletons found only belonging to extinct species of primates. Australopithecus, for example, should be classified in the family of chimpanzee depending on the shape of his skull and feet (see pictures below).
The analysis of the skeletons79 show that “prehistoric men” most represented are those aged about 15 (70% of sinanthropes die at the age of 15 years), then Neanderthal man: 80% die before the age of 30 years, 95% before the age of 40, Cro-magnon: 62% die before the age of 30 years, 88% before the age of 40, Mesolithic man: 86% die before the age of 30 years, 95% before the age of 40). These lifetimes are characteristic of different species of monkeys (chimpanzees) or apes (gorillas, etc.).
The prehistorical datings are impressive but meaningless because they are beyond 10 periods of C14 (= 10x5730 years) the residual rate falling below 0.1% which is the lower limit of measurements. Ages beyond -60,000 only require that the original C14 ratio was close to 0 at this time, which could mean a period before the Flood. In addition, prehistoric men supposed to be the ancestors of the Sumerians had dolichocephalic skulls while the Sumerians had, without exception, brachycephalic skulls. There is therefore no relationship between these two groups of men. Archaeological explanations are misleading.
