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

Deep-sea (foromanifera) core dating shown to be a shambles:

Advocates of the Milankovich theory suggest that cores of deep sea
sediment support their space concept.15 If this were the case, then all
the deep ocean cores should have shown this. Rose pointed out that "no
`ensemble' of acceptable [deep sea] cores was available to Hays, Imbrie
and Shackleton [Milankovich theory advocates]. Two partial cores that are
merged would presumably count as, at most, one and there cannot be any
[analytical] `ensemble averaging' of just one item."16 Rose also explained
that the "principal information about the ice ages [comes] from two deep
ocean cores..."17 that were cut and joined together.

How valid is this evidence and on what is it based? As pointed out above,
it was shown conclusively that Milankovich's theory was in disagreement
with the Devil's Hole chronology. This, however, has not halted scientists
from suggesting that deep ocean cores support their view of climate
change.

Nevertheless, as Landwehr and Winograd stated, two known `low' events
given by Emiliani do not correspond with either the Devil's Hole or the
deep ocean core chronologies. Both the Devil's Hole core chronology and
the deep ocean core chronology contradict Milankovich, but Ellenberger
does not acknowledge this.

According to Christopher Stringer and Clive Gamble:

Core drilled into the soft sediments of the ocean floor
contain skeletons (made from calcium carbonate) of many
different species of microscopic animals, known collectively as
foraminifera.18 The foraminiferal life span is short, and a
constant rain of these creatures falls onto the sea bed to
create sediments of "foraminifera[n]...ooze." Over millions of
years, these skeletons can accumulate to form sedimentary masses
as the chalk hills and cliffs of southern England, now uplifted
from their original positions under the sea.

But how can such microscopic creatures help us to establish a
chronology for the Pleistocene? When alive and living at the
surface of the ocean, foraminifera absorb two isotopes of oxygen
contained in the sea water. As the numbers indicate, 18O and 16O
differ in isotopic [atomic] "weight." When the oceans are small,
as happens during continental glaciation, moisture which is
drawn off to build the ice sheets takes with it the
lighter...isotope. This leaves an ocean that is isotopically
"heavy" in terms of 18O....The fluctuating ratios of the two
isotopes are recorded in the skeletons of the foraminifera.19

These investigators also explained that changes in "animal and marine
faunas are very important for recognizing these [temperature changes of]
larger subdivisions [of the Pleistocene]."20 (Emphasis added.) One of the
ways of telling oceanic temperature variations is through the direction of
foraminiferan shell swirls. This is the information, we are told, that
conforms to the Milankovich theory.

Citing T. Tosk, Michael J. Oard discussed the complex subject of taxonomy
and biostratigraphy of foraminifera in ocean sediments:

The above two fields [taxonomy and biostratigraphy] are based
on many assumptions from historical geology. Just the
classification of oceanic microorganisms is very complex, with
many problems....There is a proliferation of different names for
the same organism, and much species-splitting [of one species
into several]. Little is known about the biology and ecology of
the modern organisms. Looking at the pictures in Ramsey's
book...of the various foraminifera from various geological
periods, one is impressed by how similar some of them looked to
modern foraminifera.

These impressions are reinforced by an article in Origins.
Tosk... states how foraminifera[n] fossils are often placed in
separate biological categories--sometimes even superfamilies
[and] are given a different name if they are found at different
stratigraphic levels, while, if discovered together [at the same
level], they would be considered the same species or genus. So
modern foraminifera are likely represented in older sediments of
the geological time scale and are disguised by different names.
Evolutionists have called this process "iterative evolution"
(similar to parallel or convergent evolution), whereby the same
form supposedly evolved, repeatedly, during geological history.

From a statistical point of view, iterative evolution seems
incredible for a basically chance process (random mutations). It
appears to be a high-sounding term, designed to cover up an
embarrassing evolutionary problem. To add to the confusion,
foraminifera sometimes display different forms under different
ecological conditions. Some of the supposed extinct forms could
be odd varieties of present foraminifera, under critically
different conditions. Some pre-Quaternary sediments, so
classified according to index microfossils,...are found at the
sediment surface and are probably recent sediments.21

Foraminifera separated by different sediment levels and time periods
disappear completely in the ocean. Then they are re-evolved into exactly
the same species. This happens over and over. This is an ad hoc concept
completely without merit. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the world's
leading evolutionists, stated that it is "improbable that convergence ever
produces literal identity in structure and, certainly, no such case has
ever been demonstrated."22

One may argue that oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 measurements of foraminiferan
shells support the Milankovich theory in this spliced together deep ocean
core. But this cannot be used as support because oxygen-16 and oxygen-18
levels, from the deep sea core and from Devil's Hole, clearly contradict
Milankovich. If one wishes to rely upon the oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 ratio
as support for the theory, then this cannot be evidence for and evidence
against the concept. In essence, the Milankovich theory is becoming
another entrenched scientific dogma.

There is another method of dating the past: carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios
in the annual growth bands of corals. However, pre-1950, when atomic bomb
tests produced additional carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it was found that
coral ring and tree ring data disagreed substantially with one another.
Even coral ring carbon ratios from close contact areas, such as Bermuda
and the Florida Keys, differ substantially with each other. It has been
suggested that deep sea, non-atmospheric upwelling of deep ocean water
could account for these discrepancies. However, there is no upwelling of
deep ocean water at either Bermuda or the Florida Keys.23

Researchers assumed that there was local upwelling in Bermuda, but the
Florida Keys coral showed the same disconfirmation of tree rings as that
found in Bermuda, starting at the same time (1900) and going back in time.
One could hardly expect two local upwellings hundreds of miles apart to
end at the same time. The two corals from separate areas contradict the
tree ring measurement prior to 1900. These measurements were based on
carbon-14 to carbon-12 and carbon-13 to carbon-12 measurements, the same
ones used to date tree rings.

Therefore, the tree ring chronology often touted as support for
understanding the past is contradicted by coral ring measurements. What is
apparent is that no substantiated evidence exists to support either
climate analysis or the Milankovich theory. Those who suggest this are
party to the "Reinforcement Syndrome."24

In addition, it is well known that cores taken from the deep oceans at and
near the tropics have not changed over the last 18,000 years. Based on all
the models, it is expected that, during the Ice Age, the "mean ocean
cooling was 2.3 C."25 The evidence was discussed by Richard Monastersky in
Science News:

Oceanographers who study deep-sea sediments detect signs that
the tropical seas weathered the glacial epoch with remarkable
stability, hardly cooling it at all. Yet researchers working on
the continents and islands record evidence of marked cooling
there....

This discrepancy troubles climate researchers because it raises the
possibility that their models lack a critical element that will hinder
their ability to accurately predict future changes.26

Certain reefs off Barbados suggest that the tropical oceans had cooled
significantly, in terms of what Ice Age theory predicts. However, a major
study by the Climate Long-Range Investigation and Mapping Program (CLIMAP)
which analyzed plankton, reported in 1981, found no such evidence for
cooling. This does not agree with the evidence from the continents, which
shows dramatic climate changes.27 Now both coral and land findings
contradict oceanic climate findings.

In essence, the tree rings disagree with the corals, which disagree with
the deep sea cores in the tropical oceans. Does this sound as if the
climate and temperature records, attained by these dating methods, agree?

The Milankovich theory cannot be supported by deep sea cores unless, of
course, one is willing to make evolution do just what is needed to
conveniently support Milankovich and ignore Devil's Hole. On the other
hand, what does this evidence say with respect to Velikovsky's
catastrophic theory? If, as Velikovsky suggests, the oceans were
disrupted, the foraminifera would become mixed in the oozes with other
microscopic, organic materials buried at various sediment layers. The fact
that foraminifera are mixed into different ooze layers is clear support
for his concept. If Ellenberger or Mewhinney can explain this evidence
that contradicts their views, I am prepared to listen.
<>