Age Correlations and an Old Earth

I know it's hopeless, but ...TOE has predictive power, ID has none.
TOE explains all the known evidence, ID explains none. ("Goddidit" is not an explanation, it's just a way of stopping further inquiry).
TOE has proven utility, ID has no proven utility and no hope of utility.
TOE is a scientific theory, ID is not.

Well, yes and no. The first sentence of the second paragaph is "The purpose of this presentation is to acquaint ORIGINS readers with a more extensive and more rigorous investigation reported in Radiocarbon (Brown 1986)." which was published in a peer-reviewed and well-known journal.I'm not much of an expert on radiocarbon dating, and I don't have easy access to the Radiocarbon article. However, some questions arise:There's almost no mention of climate in the Origins article, yet climate is important enough to be in the title of the Radiocarbon article. Why?In the analysis section he writes "Each set of C-14 age versus depth data in the recent investigation was analyzed using cubic regression for a smooth curve representation of the average data trend. The analysis was limited to profiles which were described by at least 7 data pairs, with the exception of 3 continental sediment and 2 peat profiles, each of which has 6 well-spaced, precisely determined data points. Profiles for which a cubic regression with a Coefficient of Determination (CRCD) of at least 0.70 could not be obtained were not included in the group analysis. Six continental sediment and 5 soil profiles failed to meet the 0.70 CRCD criterion. Sixteen continental sediment, 5 soil, and 9 peat profiles that met the 0.70 CRCD criterion were rejected on the basis of clear evidence that the feature had been disturbed during or since emplacement, or because the data range was too restricted to establish adequately a representative trend. Of the profiles, 170 sediment, 114 peat, and 25 soil survived these restrictions." This isn't detailed enough; the raw data should be available, and more plots similar to Figure 1 should be presented.I question whether C-14 ages of deep ocean sediment is meaningful; C-14 dating is based on the supposition that the material was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when it was laid down.I wonder about where all the data came from; the references themselves don't seem to indicate.In the discussion, he says "The data represented in Figures 2-5 clearly establish a global tendency for C-14 age increment per unit of depth to increase with depth ..." This is flat-out wrong: Figures 2-4 indicate such a trend, FIgure 5 (peat) does not. He appears to ascribe the peat "anomaly" to compaction, but doesn't explain why he would expect compaction to result in a linear and horizontal fit line.It would be really interesting to see what the Radiocarbon paper says ... I suspect some cherry-picking of the data.

Wow! Ted Holden! The loon's loon! The man who makes Velikovsky look mainstream!Next thing you'll be posting Ed Conrad's stuff.whatever, you have no common sense or ability to evaluate the world.