Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3 

Chapter 26  Appendix Part 2

The following incidents also point toward rapid reversals:

"Several instances are described in which sudden magnetic changes coincide with seismic activity. One story is told of a Tokyo merchant who kept a large three-foot diameter horseshoe magnet in his store window. Just two hours before a severe 1855 earthquake, the magnet suddenly lost all its attractive strength and dropped off attached objects. Following the quake, the magnet regained its strength. The episode remains a mystery. Could there have been a temporary, local 'transient field' that demagnetized the horseshoe coincident with the earthquake? There is at present no explanation for such anomalous magnetic activity.  In the laboratory, a strong opposing field produced with usual windings is required to demagnetize a horseshoe magnet. Nevertheless, intense, natural transient fields cannot be ruled out . .

"Also, demagnetization effects are not limited to the Tokyo event. Immanuel Kant describes a 1755 earthquake in Lisbon [Portugal]:

" 'I cannot pass in silence over the fact that on that terrible All Saints Day the magnets in Augsburg threw off their load and that magnetic needles were brought into disorder.'

"Other scientists inducing Robert Boyle have also reported similar happenings during earthquakes in Naples, Rome, etc.

"By extrapolation of this phenomenon, one wonders about transient magnetic fields along the oceanic ridges. By definition, these and all other regions of igneous activity are intense seismic areas. The suggestion is that local transient fields at the time or material flow may be responsible for the recorded magnetic alignments. In this case, alternate bands of alignment are due to temporary local field changes instead of complete earth field reversals . . However, there is no known mechanism for reversing the earth's entire field, local seismic field transients certainly deserve consideration as an alternate interpretation of the data." Donald B. DeYoung, "Magnetic Field Reversals, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 188.

 In the text of this chapter it was mentioned that shock can cause reversals. The ram-effect of underground shaking can result in magnetic alterations of rocks located at a distance.

Cracks open deep in the earth, water flowing downward encounters molten rock and expands to steam, earthquakes and volcanic explosions result, electromagnetic shock waves are generated in the magnetized iron-nickel-type rock, which sends electromagnetic impulses outward. This can result in localized (in some cases only temporary) magnetic orientation changes in rocks or magnets near the surface.

 A severe blow on the rock itself sometimes has the same effect. The process is called "magnet ostriction. "

"A mechanism for changing the direction of magnetized igneous rocks is magnet ostriction. This is caused by distortions of the rock due to shock or stress. Since there has been considerable earth movement in the past, magnet ostriction may possibly explain many [localized] reversed rocks. Vestine says:

"'Perhaps, some of the interesting magnetizations of rocks stem from the effect of geologic stresses, rather than from changes in the geomagnetic field.' [*E.H. Vestine, Geomagnetic Field in the Planet Earth (1864), p. 100.]

"Some have suggested that that magnetization on the Moon is shock induced from meteorite or cometary impacts, although others believe it was caused by an ancient magnetic field from a molten core. Shock induced NRM [natural remanent magnetism] from meteorite impacts has been invoked to explain NRM in Precambrian rocks from Lake Superior. Shock induced magnetization has even been demonstrated in the laboratory by simulating meteorite bombardments. A large but transient magnetic field can be produced in a metal when fractured. It is interesting in this latter experiment that the fractured ends were reversely magnetized from each other and that lead rods showed induced magnetization even before breaking [point was reached). . Magnet ostriction may account for the magnetic stripe pattern in the ocean crust, as suggested by Barnes. This possibly could have resulted from the tectonic effects of the flood." Michael J. Oard, "Paleomagnetic Stratigiaphy and Ata Minipulation, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1985, p. 174. (References were cited in support of each statement made.)

Have earth-core reversals occurred? Solar reversals provide us with additional data. As is well known, there is a sunspot cycle on the sun. Approximately every 11 years the number of dark spots on the sun's surface goes from few to many. Every double sunspot cycle (22 years), dramatic changes in weather on earth occur, frequently accompanied by widespread drought. (In our century, the 22-year cycle occurs in the 1910s,1930s, 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s.)

Scientists have recently discovered that the poles on the sun reverse about one year after every 11-year solar maximum. "Solar maximum " is when the most sun spots appear in the 11-year cycle. Every 22 years, a complete double reversal back to the beginning occurs. One good source for the latest information on solar research is *Allan Fallow, The Sun (1990).

Questions remain as to whether magnetic reversals all over the sun's surface indicate a reversal in the sun's core, and also what could be the cause of the reversals. Without knowing whether anyone else has already done so, the present writer suggests the following as a possible solution to 11-year solar maximums and consequent solar magnetic reversals:

The subject of the cause of sunshine and solar power was discussed in chapters 2 (Origin of the Stars) and 6 (Age of the Earth). Flaws in the hydrogen explosion theory of solar power were there pointed out, and solar collapse was discussed. It was shown that a gradual shrinking of the sun could account for sunlight and other solar radiations. It is here suggested that this gradual shrinking is fairly stable, and results in a gradual increase of core pressure in the sun, which, in turn produces a build-up in sun spots on the surface. Every 11 years a readjustment occurs; the consequent tremors of that readjustment shake the core and produce a core reversal in the sun. The result is that, on the surface of the sun, the northern and southern hemispheres switch their electric charge (the one that was positive becomes negative, and vice-versa). The fact that this surface charge switch is so largely universal throughout the sun's surface would indicate that a solar core reversal had indeed been produced. A fairly steady shrinkage would be required to produce such clockwork 11- and 22-year effects, but such seems to be the case. This possible solution to the problem would also add support to the solar collapse theory of stellar energy, which requires a relatively short time since Creation.

 Barnes, a highly-respected physicist (highly-respected by the present writer also), takes an opposite view in regard to the possibility of solar core reversals:

"The magnetic field of the sun is vastly more complex than the magnetic field of the earth. The only magnetic fields that can be observed there are those in the outer portions of the sun, where there is great instability.. [He then describes solar wind speeds] . . It is no wonder that magnetic fields are generated in complex patterns that show many kinds of reversal phenomena, but none of which can be shown to be a central dipole magnet analogous to the earth's dipole magnet.

"That brings us to the question: Does the sun have a central dipole magnet [at its core], which actually reverses? The answer is: No one knows. What are commonly referred to as reversals on the sun are observable phenomena on the outer portion of the sun . .

"No one has ever shown that there is a central dipole magnet for the sun, much less evaluate its magnetic moment. To talk about the sun spot cycles and some associated [surface] magnetic reversals is valid science, provided one does not interpret that to mean a reversal of the sun's presumed central magnetic dipole moment. There is no justification for making a claim for that kind of dipole field reversal." Thomas G. Barnes, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 197.

 Before concluding this section, here is an excellent description of the geomagnetic field and its possible origin:

"The Earth's magnetic field is what makes compass needles point north . . God could have started the Earth's field in a very simple way, by using the magnetic fields of spinning atomic nuclei. He could have created many of the Earth's original atomic nuclei with their spins pointing in a particular direction. The small magnetic fields of so many nuclei would add up to a field large enough to account for the Earth's magnetism.

"Immediately after their creation, the atoms would begin to collide due to normal thermal motions. Within seconds these collisions would knock the nuclei out of their signal alignment into a more random order. But the ordinary laws of electricity and magnetism would maintain the magnetic field by starting up a large electric currentbillions of amperes in the Earth's conductive interior.

"The electrical resistance of the interior would then cause the current and field to decay steadily over thousands of years down to the size they are today. The field would decrease exponentially, that is, by a fixed percentage per unit time

"Dr. Thomas Barnes has used 130 years of published magnetic field observations to show that the earth's field indeed appears to be decaying exponentially at about five percent per century. He also showed that that decay rate corresponds to a reasonable value of electrical conductivity in the Earth's core.

"In my [earlier] article I calculated, on the basis of the nuclear magnetism hypothesis, that the Earth's field at creation was about eighteen times stronger than it is now. This value agrees to within five percent with the value we get by extrapolating the field's presets decay rate 6,000 years into the past, well within the experimental error [indicating that our world is only 6,000 years old].

"A magnetic field generated and decaying in this way would have about the same shape as the field of a bar magnet. Such a field has only two poles (north and south), so physical scientists call it a dipole field. Most of the Earth's field today is dipolar.

"So the nuclear magnetism idea, the short Biblical time scale, and an exponential decay [of earth's magnetic field] all reflect the main features of the Earth's field rather well . . .

"Magnetic reversals are not conclusive proof of a self-generating dynamo.. Though the Sun's energies reverse its field periodically, the present held is no stronger than the created field. Applying this to the Earth's field means that evidence for possible reversals in the past does not contradict the creation-decay theory. The Earth's field could, for example, have decayed steadily from Creation to the Flood, reversed rapidly many times during the upheavals d the Flood and afterwards resumed its steady decay." D. Russell Humphreys, "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, " In Creation Research Society Quarterly, pp. 140-141, 147.

For a clearer understanding of some of the factors and issues involved in the decay of earth's magnetic fieldwhich itself is a powerful evidence that our planet is no more than 6,000 years old see chapter 6, Age of the Earth. Also see chapter 25, Laws of Nature, which deals primarily with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and inexorably governs decay.

 3 -


Potassium-argon (K- Ar) dating is crucial to ocean core dating. Without K-Ar dating, the dates "signed to ocean cores could not be correlated with the 19th century "index fossil" dating theory. But potassium-argon dating is one of the most unreliable dating methods known to mankind! Ocean core dating is done in an effort to provide corroborating evidence from ocean sediments in support of evolutionary theory.

The following quotations have been taken from part of an appendix section at the end of chapter 7, Dating Methods. They are reprinted here because of the extreme importance that K-Ar dating reliability bears upon ocean core dating.

"In an attempt to establish criteria for obtaining reliable K-Ar [potassium-argon] dates, conventional K-Ar studies of several Deep Sea Drilling Project sites were undertaken. K-Ar dates of these rocks may be subject to inaccuracies as the result of seawater alteration. Inaccuracies also may result from the presence of excess radiogenic Ar-40 trapped in rapidly cooled rocks at the time of their formation." *Davis E. Sedemann, "Effect of Submarine Alteration on K-Ar Dating of Deep-Sea Igneous Rocks, " in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 88, November 1977, p. 1660.

 Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating is widely used at the present time to date fossils and related organic materials from earlier times. Modern scientific research in several crucial areas of advanced studies relies heavily upon it. Read this and you will wonder why:,

"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, ft is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." *A. Hayatsu, "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt in Nova Scotia, " in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 16, 1979, p. 974.

"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." *R. L Meager, "K-Ar Ages of Biotite from Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of Green Ricer, Washakie and Uinta Basins," in Contributions to Geology, Vol. 15,(1), 1977, p. 37.

"Thus, if one believes that it derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of held geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals." *J. P. Evsmden and V. R. Richards, "Potassium-Argon Ages in Eastern Australia," in the Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1962, p.3.

"Strong indication of the reliability of a conventual K-Ar date, such as its concordance with the dates of co-existing minerals, must exist before geologic significance can be attributed." *David E. Seidemann, "Effect of Submarine Alteration on K-Ar Dating of Deep-Sea Igneous Rocks, " in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America Vol. 88, November 1977, p. 1660.

"The [potassium-argon] dating method is increasingly inaccurate for dates of less than one million years. Consequently, there is a period during Early and Middle Pleistocene times when dating human remains is difficult and uncertain." *Natural History, February 1967, p. 58.

"The potassium-argon clock has been heralded and was supposed to have great prospects. But, as of late, it has fallen into some bad times. There are some very serious objections to using the potassium-argon decay family as radiometric clock. This is, of course, very harmful to the position of those holding the theory of seafloor spreading since their time scale has been calculated using mainly K40/Ar40dates.

"About 11 percent of K40 decays by electron capture and gamma ray emission to Ar40 and the remaining 89 percent of the K40 decays by beta-particle emission to form Ca40. The geochronologist considers the Ca40 of little practical use in radiometric dating since common calcium is such an abundant element and the radiogenic Ca40 has the same atomic mass as the calcium.

"There is far too much Ar40 in the earth for more than a small fraction of it have been formed by radioactive decay of K40. This is true even if the earth were really 4.5 billion years old. In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar40 constitutes 99.6 percent of the total argon. This is around 100 times the amount that would be generated by radioactive decay over the hypothetical 4.5 billion years. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Thus, it would seem that a large amount of Ar40 was present in the beginning. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable.

"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift that is, the data gathered horn rocks exposed on our continentswas every bit as good as it is today. It was dismissed because no one had devised a physical mechanism that would permit continents to plow through an apparently solid oceanic floor.

"In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away . . In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy." *George G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (1950), Note 233, p. 278.

 The following two statements apply with special force to this chapter. Efforts to use K-Ar dating to prove sea floor spreading are really a waste of time.

"The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an alive volcano [Kilauea] have been measured.

 Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for laves deduced to be recent.

"Caution is urged in applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor spreading." *C.S. Noble and J.J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating," Science, 162:285 (1988).

 Potassium/argon dating methods, applied to sea-floor sediments in order to prove the theory of sea-floor spreading proves just the opposite, although the researcher does not wish it so.

"Potassium-argon determinations of age from whole-rock samples of theleiitic basalts, dredged from the crest of the East Pacific Rise and from the flanks of three seamounts at varying distances form the crest, show that the crest is younger than 1 million years and that age does not correlate with distance from the crest. Our data, however, do not necessarily oppose the general concept of spreading of the ocean floor." *David E. Fisher, et. al., "Ages of Pacific Deep-Sea Basalts, and Spreading of the Sea Floor, " Science, 160: 1106 (168).

 * Hayatsu explains why it is so easy to work with potassium/argon dating: simply trash the discordant dates.

"In conventional interpretations of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially to high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data, such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." *A. Hayatsu, "K-Ar Isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 16:974 (1979).

 4 -


Deep-water well-drilling equipment is used to extract sediment cores from the ocean bottom. After discarding most of them, a few core samples are interpreted in various ways to, hopefully, provide additional evidence that (1) the fossil-dating techniques used on land strata are correct, (2) that the earth has been here for millions of years, and (3) that the geomagnetic reversals fall into definite patterns, and are generally separated from one another by millions of years.

In this section we will primarily present research analysis by Michael J. Oard, a dedicated creation scientist. From the following excerpts you will observe three facts (1) creation scientists are well versed in their fields, and not locked into conformity to the theories piled on theories in defense of classical evolutionary stratigraphy and paleographic dating. For this reason they are able to reason better, recognize technical errors more readily, and arrive at more accurate conclusions. (2) The Creation Research Society Quarterly is well worth subscribing to. It can provide you with excellent information. (3) Like the other methods used by evolutionists to prove their theories, ocean core dating is in a chaotic state.

We will cover ocean core dating techniques and problems in extra detail. But we have a purpose in doing so. You will be able to see the hopeless futility of what is being attempted, and the extremes evolutionists go in trying to vindicate evolutionary theory. Men, desperate to find additional evidence for a crumbling concept, assign young oceanographic and paleomagnetic research workers to examine ocean sand in an effort to show that their fossil dating theory applies to ocean bottoms as well as to continental strata.

All emphases in the following quotations are Oard's, unless otherwise stated.

 To begin with, Oard explains that careful selection of only the least conflicting land rocks or ocean cores is made, and these are then brought into line with the 100-year-old fossil strata theory with its "index fossils."

"Technically speaking, 'Magnetostratigraphy is not a dating technique. It only provides globally synchronous correlation planes, whose identification is possible by comparison with other stratigraphic or radiometric data." [*G Kukla and *J.D.A. Zijderveld, "Magnetostratigraphic Pitfalls," in Nature 266:275-276 (1977).]

"In other words, paleomagnetism is not an independent dating system, but depends upon index fossils and other dating methods. Just because a reversal is found in a rock or sediment, it does not mean it has a date because all reversals are similar. The rock or sediment must first be placed into its position in the geological column, and even when this is done, paleomagnetism cannot guarantee that there are no missing sections. In reality, the main geological control is index fossils." Michael Oard, Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1985, p. 171.

 Referring specifically to ocean core dating, Oard explains:

"Before a core can be dated by 'absolute' methods, it must first be placed into its 'proper' position in the geological column. This is done by index fossils. .

"Much of the biostratigraphic analysis is done aboard ship soon after the core is collected and before other dating techniques are applied: 'Indeed, it is difficult to adequately acknowledge the work that precedes the selection of a particular core as suitable for the application of a particular [dating] technique.' [*N.J. Shackleton, "Stratigraphic Record of Deep-sea Cores, et. al.," in *K.W. Butzer and *G.l. Isaac (ode.), After the Australopithecines (1975), p. 9.]

"According to the fossils [found in the cores], 'Quaternary sediments are absent over extensive areas of the ocean floor.' [*D.C. Bowen, Quaternary Geology (1978), p. 57.] Of those cores defined as Quaternary, a large majority cannot be used because of 'reworking' [i.e., because they are located in the wrong levels] . . Although some of the thousands of cores can be used for particular research application, few are extensively analyzed. These [samples] are the ones that have already met preconceived ideas and are internally consistent [with classical fossil dating]; the many others are conspicuous by their absence and indicate the many problems involved in index fossil dating." Michael J. Oard, "The Manipulation of Deep-sea Cores, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1984, p. 132.

 Oard then relates an incident in which a worker tried to "fight the system," but lost the battle. The fossil dating theory had to be protected at all cost.

"For those really not aware of it, index fossil dating is a very rigid system because it is based on the assumption of evolution. An example of the rigidity occurred several years ago when the new results of paleomagnetism contradicted the assumed age of the index fossil, Globorotalia truncatulinoides. This case is all the more interesting because this fossil is considered'. . one of paleontologys most reliable datum planes." ["Paleomagnetism and G. truncatulinoides," in Nature 241:431.]

"With the support of another radiolarian index fossil, it was concluded that G. truncatulinoides existed 1 to 1.5 million years before its supposed first occurrence at the base of the Pleistocene. Reworking and contamination were considered and ruled out. Needless to say, this result had serious implications because ' . . a great many studies based on the validity of this particular datum plane must surely have led to incorrect conclusions.' [" G truncatulinoides in Dispute," in Nature, 244:74.]

..Consequently, the author of the contradictory evidence was attacked ' . . with a vehemence that is much less common in science than it was many decades ago.' [Ibid..] He valiantly defended himself and his methods, but in the end, the challenge to the very rigid index fossil dating scheme failed. This is also an example of how specialists can mold various dating techniques into what appears to be a coherent whole." Ibid.

"The assumption of synchronous world-wide fossil changes has rarely, if ever been proven within the evolutionary framework . . Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geological time . . In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by fossil dating over 100 years ago." Ibid.

We will next turn our attention to the fact that any attempt to obtain "datings" from ocean sediment cores is essentially worthless. Grains of magnetized igneous rock sediments fall to the bottom of the sea and then rest in a position somewhat oriented to the axis of earth's magnetic core. The amount of magnetization is extremely low, and a wide variety of events can and does easily change the position of these grains before a core is drilled. Additional changes occur during and after the core is drilled. Most of the results are tossed aside, and the few that can be pushed into agreement with classical fossil dating methods are published as proof of the veracity of evolution.

" 'Only a minute portion of the deep-sea cores . . are stratigraphically continuous and undisturbed.' [*"Caribbean Cores P6304-8, et al.," in Science, 166:15552.] . . .

"It is expected that very few erroneous results or glaring contradictions with other dating methods would ever be published. The few that are published are usually just the tip of the iceberg and can give considerable insight into the method. Broecker hints at many problems when a new dating method is used: 'As with all new approaches to earth sciences, valid results are accompanied by numerous erroneous ones.' [*W.S. Broedcer, in *H.E. Wright and *D.G. Frey (eds.), Quaternary of the U.S (1965), p. 737.] . . .

"Shackleton says further: 'The method can never be precise. . moreover detailed studies reveal disconcerting gaps in our understanding of the accumulations.' [*N.J. Shackleton, "Stratagraphic Record of Deep-sea Cores, et al.", in K.W. Butzer and G.L. Isaac (eds.), After the Australopithecines (1975), p.15.] In discussing dating methods between 50,000 and 300,000 years ago, Shotton says: 'Except for fission track dating, none of these other methods can be yet said to be firmly established as reliable.'[*F.W. Shotton, in *A. E. Wright and *F. Mossely (ads.), Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern (1975), p. 5.] . . .

"The question naturally arises how consistent results a order can be generated out of the chaos of problems, unknowns and assumptions. It will be shown in detail with examples how an extreme bias can manipulate data by various means and how the 'reinforcement syndrome' keeps the data and researchers consistent." *Op. cit., pp. 134, 135.

 The entire field is, for the most part, a confused study of disoriented sand that must, somehow, be fit into a preconceived pattern.

"In referring to paleomagnetic reconstructions that support continental drift, Rezanov says concerning paleomagnetism as a whole: ' . . many cardinal problems of the paleomagnetic method are still far from their ultimate solution, while others, the premises of the method, are still hypothetical.' [*LA. Rzeuav, "Paleomagnetism and Continental Drift, in International Geology Review 10n:765 (1968).] An article summarizing a meeting of the steering committee on paleomagnetism of the International Geological correlation program asks: 'With all these problems. can paleomagnetic "magic" still be taken seriously?' [*G. Kukla and *J.D.A. Zijdervekl, "Magnetostratigraphic Pitfalls," in Nature 266:774.] Since the participants have used the [fossil dating] system to date and are very dependent on it, the answer, of course, was Yes. Nevertheless, many serious problems remain unsolved." Michael J. Oard, "Paleomagnetic Stratigraphy and Data Manipulation, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1985, p. 172.

 Here are some of the problems encountered, as the workers try to find the magnetic orientation of tiny grains of magnetic particles:

"Ocean sediments are subject to all kinds of deformation caused by erosion, slumping, turbidity currents, plastic flow, earthquakes, etc. . . 'Such features can be detected in exposures but easily overlooked in cores.' [*G. Kukla and *J.D.A. Zijderveld, "Magnetostratigraphic Pitfalls," in Nature 266:774.] Consequently, the same old problem of finding undisturbed sediments is a disadvantage right from the start. Ibid.

 Keep in mind that when the grain fell through the water and was originally deposited on the ocean bottom, strong currents could have deflected its orientation before burial. Grains on lake bottoms are known to be worthless for such reasons, yet those on ocean floors are thought to be usable for magnetic orientation dating purposes.

"As a magnetic grain falls through the water column, it tends to become aligned with the earth's field. However, as it settles on the bottom and comes to rest, several mechanisms can cause a systematic misalignment. These include the iodination error caused when the grains roll into depressions on the bottom, and the bedding plane error due to a sloping bottom, and a current rotation error caused by a grain's tendency to also become aligned with the current. The bedding plane and inclination errors supposedly are not detected in ocean sediments, although very real in lake sediments. 'Post-depositional remagnetization' is the reason given for this surprising difference. In regard to the current rotation error, 'Water movements in a basin are capable of producing large deflections which can be coherent at separate localities.' The three processes should be quite variable and difficult to measure for the past." Ibid. (italics ours).

Then there are serious problems with the coring operation itself. Extracting the sediment from the ocean bottom tends to change the orientation of the grains:

"The coring operation itself can disturb the orientation of the sediment. Nonvertical penetration of the corer and the `suck in' of the sediments frequently cause misinterpretation. Often the corer rotates as it penetrates the sediments.

" 'In the extreme case, the shear stress may exceed the strength of the sediments, in which case the core [of sediment inside the pipe] may break, twist, and heal itself leaving almost no visible evidence of a break. . it is even possible for

a piston corer to invert the order of the flat lying beds.' [*K. L. Verosub and *S. K. Banerjse, " Geomagnetic Excursions and their Paleomagnetic Record, " in Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 15:150 (1977).]

"Sudden, unexplained changes in magnetic direction in some cores are blamed on this twisting effect. Sometimes the core is stretched and the top is sometimes missed." Ibid . (italics ours].

 When the core has been extracted, then more problems occur.

"Even in the handling and storage of cores, magnetic disturbance can occur:

" 'The core may also be deformed in handling, cutting in segments and in storage. Freezing of cores as practiced by some alynological laboratories can produce large ice crystals which can damage the core structure.' [*G. Kukla and *J.D.A. Zijderveld, "Magnetostratigraphic Pitfalls," in Nature 266:774.]

"Cores shrink while drying, especially those with a large clay content, and the DRM [sediment magnetic orientation] change direction. However, another report says' . . unreliable results were obtained if the sediment was too wet' In other words, the magnetic effect of drying is unresolved." Ibid.

 Add to this "overprinting," when new magnetizations are imprinted over the original one:

"Whatever the assumed mechanism of DRM, there are magnetic processes that can obscure the original magnetization. In other words, other magnetic fields are said to be `overprinted' on the original DRM form such sources as a different geomagnetic field, the earth's non-dipole field, the coring, handling and storage of cores, etc. Consequently, the measured DRM of the core can be very chaotic, or at least not what was expected. These secondary overprints must be eliminated, presuming one 'knows' what must be removed and what must be kept." Op. cit., pp. 172-173.[ italics ours].

 All of these problems, plus imagined "reworking" and "burrowing" are used in order to juggle the best specimens into agreement with classical index fossil dates. ("Reworking" means that it is thought that grains or fossils may have worked themselves down into lower levels; "burrowing" is the effects of sea worms which are known to extensively drill down deep into the sediments, eating their way through it much as earthworms on land do.)

Even the best of the core samples will not agree with classical theory, so they are "accommodated" into agreement by assuming turbidity currents, tilted beds, reworking, burrowing changes, plastic flaws, drill twist, sediment inversion, shear stress, freeze-shift, sediment too wet, etc. Above all else, the published core data MUST agree with the 100-year-old fossil dating theoryor it must not be published)

 A valued technique is "curve matching." The data on the best specimens (those most likely to be able to be twisted into conformity with the classical theory) is juggled to match the regular fossil theory. Those details in a given specimen which agree are "curve matched," and all the disjunctive, contradictory details are simply ignored! The result is a perfect match!

"Extreme bias produced the 'proof' of the theory. In this section [of this article] I will explore just how this bias can actually transform data to fit preconceived ideas and produce consistent results with many cores. It is not possible to apply all the previously mentioned dating methods to a core. usually, just one a tyro methods can be used, and sometimes none. Often a core is not 'old' enough to pass through the Bruhnes-Matuyama reversal boundary, and therefore paleomagnetism cannot be applied. Often the top of the core is missing or disturbed or there is no suitable material for radiocarbon dating. Consequently, most of the dating of deep-sea cores is actually done by simple curve matching of particular variables, especially oxygen isotope fluctuations in an assumed standard curve. Emiliani says: ' . . curves representing these parameters may allow the precise correlation of cores collected even on the opposite sides of the earth . . ' [*C. Emiliani, "The Curse of the Ice Ages," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 37:349 (1978).] Broedcer states: ' . . in the case of ocean cores, correlations must be accomplished largely by curve matching.' [*W.S. Broedcer, Absolute Dating and the Astronomical Theory of Glaciation," in Science (1965), p. 749.]

"It is common practice to match a particular core to a few available standard cores, which have been extensively analyzed and are the 'pick of the lot." Op. cit, pp. 177-178.

How is curve matching done? Here are a few details:

"The method of actually making the curves match is first to shift the dates they do have, since the dating schemes are very plastic; assume missing sections in the core; change the sedimentation rate where convenient, since this is really not known; and assume reworking when the fossils do not match. A missing section or hiatus acts to stretch the core, while changing the sedimentation rate equals or contracts it. Reworking can also act to compress the core. Thus any curve can be made to match any other by these mechanisms. Opik says:

"The writer has also shown that, with an arbitrary change in the time scale and but slight adjustments in the individual dates (much smaller than the errs of observations), almost any set of fluctuating phenomena, such as rainfall at an arbitrary locality, can be brought into perfect agreement (as far as the highs and lows are concerned) with another fluctuating set, including the astronomical curve of solar radiation in the northern hemisphere. [*E.J. Opik, "Ice Ages in the Planet Earth" (1964), pp. 186-187.]

 *Bowen affirms:

" '. . . all such climate curves, for whatever data, may be stretched or contracted, so as to match the available, or new, dating evidence. Many such curves have been replotted using dating assumptions different from the original work . . Within the constraints of their radiometric tags, which are unfortunately often equivocal, all climatic curves are elasticated to some extent. [*D.C. Bowen, Quarternary Geology (1978), p. 82, 84.]

" Watkins adds further: 'It is also important to realize that corelation of any parameter within the cores can be forced correlation, in that inferred sedimentation rates can be varied.' (*N.D. Watkins, "Reviews of the Development of the Geomagnetic Polarity, et. al.," in Geological Society of America Bulletin (1972). p. 564.]

"The degree to which cores are juggled is indicated by the following statement: '. . individual case all contain sedimentation rate changes and many small hiatuses. .' [*J.J. Morely and *J.D. Hays, "Towards a High-resolution Global, Deep-sea Chronology, et. al. " in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 53:280 (1981).] Emiliani says much the same thing: '. . these correlations also reveal wide differences in sedimentation rates between distant regions as well as appreciable changes in sedimentation rates through time within the same region [154.]" Op cit., p. 178.

 Scientists are taught to use the so-called "reinforcement syndrome," so they will produce consistent results. This reinforcement syndrome is nothing more than ignoring all the conflicting details, and only using the ones agreeing with the classical fossil dating theory!

"Why is so much supporting [ocean core] evidence being produced lately? . . The answer. . is due to the 'reinforcement syndrome,' which is an outgrowth of extreme bias. This concept was developed as a possible explanation for the many paleomagnetic excursions and anomalies that were creeping into the literature. Verosub summarizes how the reinforcement syndrome works:

" 'The importance of the 'reinforcement syndrome' should not be underestimated. the initial report of a paleomagnetic excursion will encourage other workers to reexamine previously unexplained or disregarded 'curious' results and to reinterpret sedimentation rates so that the anomalous behavior seen by them is contemporaneous with the paleomagnetic excursion. Subsequent work will also focus of sediments of the same age. Reported excursions will then tend to cluster around a single date, whereas negative results showing no anomalous behavior will tend to remain unpublished because the are 'not interesting.' Thus the initial reports exert considerable leverage on the direction of the future research.' [*K.L. Verosub, "Paleomagnetic Excursions as Magnetostratiqraphic Horimns, " in Science 190:50, note 19.]

"This quotation indicates that there are many 'curious' and 'uninteresting' results that never become published. By picking-and-choosing and manipulating the data to be published, consistent results are produced which generally agree with previous research.

"Unfortunately, this can lead to the syndrome in which scattered data are examined and the odd points that are near to previous observations are accepted for publication and the remainder appear, if at all, in the inaccessible appendix of thesis . . the data may well already have been subjectively selected to conform to previous data or models. [*D.H. Tarling, "A Proterozoic Panqaea?" in Nature 299:207 (1982).]

"This is a vicious circle and the results become locked in with time." Ibid.

 We have here had an opportunity to more closely examine one of the "evidences" for evolutionary long ages. We have found it to be little more than a desperate attempt to make facts conform to a theory in order to provide additional "evidence" for long ages of time. Oard summarizes the whole dismal picture of core sample research in this way:

"The method has many serious problems. The original sediment changes and the coring operation. The original geomagnetic field must be extracted from the chaotic measurements. The actual dates are provided by matching the magnetic measurements in the core to a standard Polarity time scale, a very subjective procedure since all reversals look alike and the standard is riddled with anomalies . .

"How is order generated from the chaos of assumptions, variables, unknowns and problems? A closer look at the results in answering this question exposes their methodology, which can extended to other aspects of historical sciences and the creation/evolution controversy. The desire to prove the theory causes an extreme bias, which results in the manipulation of data from deep-sea cores. In actuality, most cores are dated by simple curve matching to a few standard cores, which are the 'ideal.' The match is made very dose by changing the inferred sedimentation rate and by invoking hiatuses where needed. 'Reworking' explains many anomalies. Most scientists are then convinced by the 'reinforcement syndrome,' which further synthesizes new results into what appears to be a coherent whole." Op. cit, p. 179.

You have just completed 

  Chapter 27