Moreover, the different dating systems are calibrated to one another: dates assigned to the seafloor sediments are used to date the ice cores, and vice versa.
In fact, the dating of the ice and seafloor sediment cores is a gigantic exercise in circular reasoning.
63) noted “glaring discrepancies” between the theory of their formation and reality.
However, their existence is consistent with extremely fast-moving water indiscriminately eroding both hard and soft sediments.
But how do secular scientists narrow this possible age range to actually assign a more precise date (within their worldview) to a layer of seafloor sediment?
And is there a connection between dates assigned to seafloor sediments and dates assigned to the high latitude ice cores?
Of course, both erosion and sedimentation rates would have been orders of magnitude greater during and shortly after the Flood event, so the bulk of these seafloor sediments would have been deposited toward the end of the Flood and shortly afterward.
Currently, the earth’s orbit is becoming slightly less elliptical (more circular), with a decrease in its eccentricity.
This is consistent with initially rapid but gradually decreasing sedimentation rates during and shortly after the Flood (Vardiman 1996).
Of course, if massive quantities of sediments really were deposited into the ocean basins in the aftermath of the Flood, then these sediments must have been quickly eroded from the continents in a very short amount of time.
The theory was first proposed in the nineteenth century by J. Adhémar and James Croll, although it was later refined and propounded by Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković (Imbrie 1982; Milanković 1941).
Within the last 40 years or so, the astronomical theory has become the dominant secular theory for these supposed Pleistocene ice ages, largely as the result of a key 1976 paper (Hayes, Imbrie, and Shackleton 1976).