Re: Theoretical interpretation

David Campbell (
Tue, 11 May 1999 11:13:33 -0400

>One would expect in a global catastrophe that the ratios between isotopes
>in depositions will vary, not by long time, but by sequence of events
>during the catastrophe. You have to get past the homogeneity concept of
>the Flood. M. Oard, in his technical monograph on an Ice Age following
>the Flood catastrophe, discusses how statistical correlation with the
>supposed Milankovitch cycle mean nothing.

But the isotopes are similar worldwide for a given layer. I have read
Vardiman's exposition of a similar idea to what you are attributing to Oard
(he probably cited Oard, but I do not remember), and it is Vardiman's
mathematics that mean nothing ("lots of things in nature show exponential
patterns" is not adequate justification, for example. Lots of things in
nature have six legs, but the pattern of sedimentation does not.). For the
present purpose, however, even without the Milankovitch correlation (which
is not always as well-supported as claimed), you must account for worldwide
changes. The real pattern is stratigraphic change and global similarity.
What you are suggesting would explain global variation and temporal
similarity. Unless you can explain how the isotopic ratios can change
throughout the world fast enough to squeeze the observed patterns into the
time frame you are advocating, then your models are inadequate and should
be rejected.

David C.