mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Part II

Related sources of evidence yeild contradictory results:

I believe that parts of the sea floor fell to an even greater depth while
inland sections of continents rose.

Evidence for oceanic, sea-floor subsidence is found for undersea mountains
or seamounts, which contain surface materials, such as corals, that are
now a kilometer below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean:

Exploration of the New England Seamount chain by the research submarine
Alvin confirms that some of these peaks, now all a kilometer or more below
the surface, were once at or above the surface of the ocean.

This undersea mountain chain contains more than 30 major peaks and
stretches 1,600 miles southeast from the New England coast. Deep-sea
dredging has previously brought up Eocene limestone of shallow-water
origin from the submerged mountain tops [attributed to iceberg detritus
carried off the continents] but the Alvin exploration resulted in the
first eye witness accounts of dead coral algae that grows only within 100
meters of the surface. The New England Seamounts have, therefore, either
subsided on the order of a kilometer [(3,281 feet)] since Eocene times or
the sea level has altered drastically.5

Coral reefs and platforms grow so rapidly that their growth outstrips sea
floor spreading, geological subsidence of the sea floor or gradual rises
in sea levels. This, then, is the problem. All over the oceans, the record
indicated deep coral platforms, suggesting that the sea floor sank or that
extraordinary amounts of water were added catastrophically. Wolfgang
Schlager concluded that gradualistic processes are inadequate and had
suggested that violent methods must have been employed so as to create
these drowned coral reefs.6

He explained that the growth rate of corals is
1,000 m/ yr [micrometers per year], which exceeds any relative
rise in sea level caused by long-term processes in the
geological record. Newly formed ocean crust subsidence is at a
maximum rate of 250 m/ yr, basic subsidence averages 10 to 100
m/ yr and sea level rises, due to increased sea floor spreading,
to less than 10 m/ yr.7

In essence, singly or all together, these processes will not drown coral
reefs or carbonate platforms. Schlager showed that these formations are
found all over the Earth. Thus, in ocean regions, we have evidence that
the sea floor sank to great depths. This evidence suggests that the ocean
basins dropped by a phenomenon not related to gradualistic processes. It
indicates that these coral reefs and carbonate platforms sank rapidly or
catastrophically to great depths.

From the grand old man of oceanography, Francis P. Shepherd, who has spent
50 years of his life studying submarine canyons, we learned that the
immense canyons running off the continental shelf and deep into the oceans
from all continents were carved by subaerial water. According to Shepherd,
Pleistocene geologists are wrong to deny that many of these canyons were
above the ocean surface, were cut by rivers and then sank below the
present sea level.8

Douglas W. Johnson provided this provocative statement supporting
Shepherd's conclusions:

The most obvious explanation of submarine canyons, offered
more than [50] years ago and still regarded by many
investigators as the one most probably correct, is that they are
normal, young river valleys or gorges carved during higher
stands of the continents or a lower stand of sea level and
deeply submerged in comparatively recent geologic time.9

The only reason for rejecting this hypothesis is the catastrophic
requirement inherent in lowering these canyons deep below the oceans.
Using straightforward geophysical evidence, Johnson then showed how
neither turbidity currents, nor land slides, nor submarine spring sapping
can account for the creation of these remarkable sea canyons.10

What Ellenberger and Mewhinney have done is apply uniformitarian theory to
a catastrophic scenario. The fundamental evidence negates Ellenberger and
Mewhinney's analysis definitively but supports Velikovsky's scenario
completely!

Rose was greatly taken to task by Ellenberger and Mewhinney for his
extremely skeptical views regarding the accuracy of the ice cores. They
did this, as I will show, by ignoring fundamental evidence that
invalidated their beliefs and assertions. For example, in Part II of
"Still Facing Many Problems," Ellenberger claimed that the Milankovich
theory for ice ages is definitively supported by Greenland ice cores and
disproves Velikovsky's 3,500-year-old date:

"Velikovsky's timetable for the last
glaciation is decisively disproved by the oxygen isotope
profiles in the Greenland icecap, which indicate that the
temperatures reached their present general level about 10,000
years ago."11

If this is so, then other accurate cores which measure the same climate
periods of the Milankovich theory should corroborate the ice cores. This
is very important with respect to oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 content in other
cores. Ellenberger has claimed that there has been "no serious, informed
challenge to the modern Milankovich model...."12 But what has not been
discussed, as far as I know, is that there is another crucial and superior
core of material which also contains layers of oxygen-16 and oxygen 18.
This does not agree with the Milankovich theory as applied to the icecaps
or deep sea cores and makes the ice core data unreliable, contrary to what
Ellenberger and Mewhinney suggest. According to Richard Monastersky:

For the last 15 years, most climate researchers have looked to
space for an explanation of the ice ages that have repeatedly
gripped our planet in recent geologic times. The established
theory, called the Milankovich hypothesis, holds that wiggles
and wobbles in Earth's orbit serve as a pacemaker that
determines when the planet plunges into a glacial period and
when it thaws out of one. But new evidence from a deep crack in
the Nevada Desert threatens to overturn the Milankovich theory
and replace it with a more down-to-Earth solution.

We feel that the Milankovich theory is incapable of
explaining the climate shift," says Isaac J. Winograd of the
[United States] Geological Survey in Reston, [Virginia]....

The climate information collected by Winograd's group comes from Devil's
Hole....The fissure is filled with mineral-rich water that has coated the
rock walls with layer upon layer of calcite over the last 500,000
years....

By analyzing the ratio of two isotopes--oxygen-18 and oxygen-16--at
hundreds of spots along the calcite core, Winograd and his colleagues
identified changes in the temperature of the atmosphere when rain fell in
the Devil's Hole region....

But the Devil's Hole record, with its superior chronology, shows that the
timing of specific events in the last 500,000 years does not match the
predictions of the Milankovich theory....13

In spite of this clear denial of Milankovich, Caesare Emiliani attempted
to interpret the Devil's Hole findings in terms of Milankovich but was
shown to be wrong by the scientists who had carried out the research. In a
letter to Nature, they stated:

We are puzzled by the table in the Scientific Correspondence
by Emiliani. He rejects the conventionally used terminations
(glacial, inter-glacial transitions) as time markers and focuses
on bathythermals (the coldest portions of glacial cycles), which
he deems to be sharper and, therefore, more precise time
markers. He claims that bathythermals in the Devil's Hole 18O
chronology occur at times when the orbital parameters of [the
Earth] obliquity [(axial tilt)] and eccentricity [to the Sun]
are both low,...thereby supporting the Milankovich mechanism....

We show [in a table]...the seven astronomical "low" events
that Emiliani gives....We were puzzled as to why Emiliani
omitted [from his table] two well-defined "low" events...and
note that they do not correspond to bathythermals in either the
Devil's Hole or the marine [deep ocean core] 18O chronologies.
Indeed, the "low" [or coldest] event occurs during a peak
interglacial time [when it was warmest]. We also note that
Emiliani's designation of a "low" event [for two periods] does
not [even] fit the earlier stated definition.

Also show[n] in the figure are the eight major 18O minima,
denoting times of full glacial climate, found in the Devil's
Hole chronology, and the subset of six events that Emiliani
gives...in his table. He did not mention the two Devil's Hole
isotope minima [at the time periods] which do not correspond to
any astronomical "low" event.

In comparing the astronomical "low" events predicted by the
specific definition with the minimal isotope events found in the
Devil's Hole chronology, one sees that, although there are four
"matches," there are six "non-matches," twice when a
bathythermal would be predicted but did not happen and four
times when one did occur but not during an astronomical "low"
event.14

What we have encountered are three dating methods, measuring oxygen-16 and
oxygen-18, which contradict each other: one in ice layers in Greenland,
one in an oceanic deep sea core and one in calcite layers in Nevada. If
the measurements at Devil's Hole are correct and are called superior to
the deep sea cores, then there is something seriously wrong with the data.
Of course, some ad hoc theory will be put forth by establishment theorists
to make the contradiction of measurements harmonize with the preponderant
theory. Now just imagine how neocatastrophists would be assaulted if such
an embarrassing contradiction were to be discovered with respect to our
theories. No doubt, we would be laughed at. But established theory is
immune to contradictory evidence. <>