A global flood.

[rmwilliamsll]

I thought of one other thing related to this. If you have time, could you search your science news sites to see if they ever mentioned it? If not, I wonder if they just never heard of it, or if they rejected it out of hand -- i.e. bias.

i do not have geological training, i seldom study the issues in this field as a result, but i'll look at it for a few minutes.

google: Hatakai shale pollen

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199709/0101.html
note it is GM in a discussion dated 1997
internal link: http://www.rae.org/pollen.html
the research is:
C. L. Burdick, (1972), in the Grand Canyon
the answer appears to be modern pollen raining down on exposed strata

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/burdick_polen_kh.htm

However, after reviewing Burdick (1981) and the Creation Research Society Quarterly articles, a more likely hypothesis is that pollen-rich rain and river waters flowed into the subsurface through networks of fractures and contaminated the shales during the Cenozoic development and growth of the Grand Canyon.

AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/fossil.asp

PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON
— A REEXAMINATION
Arthur V. Chadwick
Associate Professor of Biology
Loma Linda University
Origins 8(1):7-12 (1981).
at: http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm

a good introduction to the geology of the Grand Canyon with a short sidebar on the pollen issue
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
he leads to the next YECist article at:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html

Precambrian Plant Fossils and the Hakatai Shale Controversy
Volume 36(3):106-113 December 1999
Carl R. Froede, Jr.

THE DEPOSITION AND EROSION OF THE GRAND CANYON
AND ITS CLEAR TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE CANOPY
AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
Bernard E. Northrup Th.D.
at: http://www.ldolphin.org/grandcanyon.html

here is a series of links to chadwick:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
--->cited above
http://hometown.aol.com/ibss2/howoldisearth.html
--->point to TO at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
--->it does not discuss the pollen issue.

http://www.pdox.net/~glk/Unsorted_files/A77-Burdick.txt
--->404
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/various/chadwick1/default.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm
--->this is Lenny Flank on the pollen issue
from: http://groups.google.co.ug/group/ta.../group/talk.origins/browse_frm/month/2001-11?
another discussion group thread on the pollen topic

"Closing Comments

To be blunt, the study by Howe, et al., (1988) is garbage. They only
collected 9 samples. They were not especially careful in their sample
collection and preparation procedures. Only 3 of the samples were from
the Hakatai Shale. Only 1 or 2 of those samples had pollen. The pollen
found in these ancient rocks, thought by all geologists to be
deposited at a time when there were absolutely no land plants in
existence, was representative of modern plants growing in the area.
They proceed to publish this when they should have redone the study
and other young-earth creationists (e.g. Russell Humphreys) tout this
as "scientific" evidence for a young-earth.
Such claims may convince laypeople with no knowledge of science and
proper scientific protocols but will never convince anyone with more
than a passing knowledge of paleontology and geology.

I'm a Christian and I'm ashamed that this sloppy science and its
associated misrepresentations are propagated by other Christians. This
type of garbage will only hinder acceptance of the Gospel message
because in unnecessarily gives the impression that Christians are not
overly concerned with the truth."

i can't find the original source, as stated in the posting it is from Schimmrich, i didn't google any other sources for this quote.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199808/0204.html

he apparently took the original posting off line. but i suspect this is the best analysis of the pollen. i see no reason to go further. It is well explained and no one in the field seems interested in opening up a 30 years old flawed study. It is beyond reasonable doubt that it is contamination, not one not even IRC or other YECists groups has repeated the study with the same findings. There are a number of people that have looked at the issue and show that it is a contaminated sample, the only discussion is how the samples were contaminated: pollen rain or through the microscopic cracks.

Not true. Read the literature yourself -- extreme measures were taken to avoid contamination. One evolutionist has tried to actually gather samples for testing, but it appears that he used the wrong procedure for reducing the samples, and destroyed any fossilized pollen in the process. Including his tests, pollen has been found 3 out of 4 times. Also, it was not "pollen on the surface", but rather fossilized pollen deep within the sample. The samples were thouroughly scrubbed and cleaned before processing to prevent just such surface contamination.

i read all the links above. The pollen was not fossilized, the experiment has never been reproduced yet lots of samples are taken from the area and studied. It is beyond reasonable doubt a contaminated sample. There are apparent no claims other than this first one, no one has duplicated this in more than 30 years, that alone makes it an "off the curve point". The issue is a lot of smoke there is no fire, just people yelling fire. it is not an issue.

I thought of one other thing related to this. If you have time, could you search your science news sites to see if they ever mentioned it? If not, I wonder if they just never heard of it, or if they rejected it out of hand -- i.e. bias.
it is too old to appear in: http://www.sciencedaily.com
or http://sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SCC=Q&Q=fossilized+pollen+in+grand+canyon&x=0&y=0
it's not worth the time to search journal or other databases. google scholar hits them
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...ed+pollen&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Search
nothing different than i've already read.

 

[Mallon]

From http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/discrim.htm:

The final straw came in 1966, when Burdick, who was working with a University of Arizona team at the Grand Canyon, announced he had found modern conifer pollens in pre-Cambrian sediments, a discovery which, Burdick gushed, would "bury evolutionary geology forever" (Numbers 1992, p. 261). Lammerts, who was already suspicious of Burdick because of the "doctors degree stuff", began to wonder if Burdick was "academically honest" (Numbers, 1992, p. 262) His suspicions rose when he attended a creation seminar in Arkansas with Burdick. "I was appalled at the slowness of Burdick mentally when at the Creation seminar," Lammerts wrote to fellow CRS member Henry Morris, "and hope he is not misleading us." Lammerts reported that Burdick "had evidently never heard of the series of horse-like animals found and was at a complete loss to explain them. Evidently he has not kept up with his reading very much." (Numbers, 1992, p. 264)
Alarmed by the possibility of a hoax, the CRS in 1969 asked two independent scientists from Loma Linda University to accompany Burdick back to the Grand Canyon to double-check his research. Although shortly afterwards Burdick triumphantly reported to CRS that his original discovery of pre-Cambrian pollen had been confirmed, both scientists concluded that Burdick was simply too incompetent to take an uncontaminated soil sample. No pre-Cambrian pollen grains were found. (In 1981, creationist biologist Arthur Chadwick, who had once been Burdick's assistant at the Grand Canyon, reported that he could not find a trace of pollen of any sort in any of the fifty samples taken from the same strata studied by Burdick.) The CRS concluded that Burdick's "pollen" was the result of sloppy and incompetent research methods, not a deliberate fraud.

 

[laptoppop]

i read all the links above. The pollen was not fossilized, the experiment has never been reproduced yet lots of samples are taken from the area and studied. It is beyond reasonable doubt a contaminated sample. There are apparent no claims other than this first one, no one has duplicated this in more than 30 years, that alone makes it an "off the curve point". The issue is a lot of smoke there is no fire, just people yelling fire. it is not an issue.

Actually, the latest replication that I can find is 1999, by a team that took extraordinary care to avoid anyone being able to claim contamination, and who specifically chose strata without visible cracks. I'll find and post the links tonight.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, the latest replication that I can find is 1999, by a team that took extraordinary care to avoid anyone being able to claim contamination, and who specifically chose strata without visible cracks. I'll find and post the links tonight.

Better yet, can you please find the reference to the science journal in which this was published? Science is published in science journals; not evagelical newsletters.

 

[laptoppop]

Truth can be found in lots of places. Given the smaller number of YEC scientists, it is quite reasonable that many publish more in magazines, etc., that reach a larger audience.

However -- here you go (of course, now you'll say that this journal isn't good enough - but I'm not buying into that type of elitism):

Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Volume 36(3):106-113 December 1999[/FONT]
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi...h.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html

see also
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(4):161 March, 1989
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi...tionresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a1.html

Look at the end of the article for details about the processing used.

See also http://www.rae.org/pollen.html -- again detailing the methodology.

Yes, the original find is pretty darn old - but at this point it has been replicated by more than one team, and the objections to the original processing have been addressed.
[/FONT]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i can not find:
Williams, E. L. 1997. Precambrian pollen—A response. CRSQ 33:239–242.

Online.

other than that the whole issue of research after the first paper is a single line from
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi...tionresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a1.html
Howe and his co-workers concluded that these results support Burdick's claims of having discovered fossil pollen grains of gymnosperms and angiosperms in the Precambrian Hakatai Shale.

i really wouldn't exchange much of my scientific systematic thinking in biology in exchange for such evidence.

that is the only claim i can find for a retest of the strata for fossillized pollen.

 

[Mallon]

Truth can be found in lots of places.

Even outside the Bible?!?!?!?

However -- here you go (of course, now you'll say that this journal isn't good enough

You guessed it! CRSQ isn't a science journal. You can tell because you'll notice that the scientific method isn't followed. For example, where in the world are the methods outlined as to how to replicate the authors' findings??? How does one isolate Precambrian pollen spores?

 

[laptoppop]

• Creation Research Society Studies on PreCambrian Pollen: Part I - A Review," CRSQ Vol. 23, pp 99 - 104 A look at the history of the extraction of PreCambrian pollen from Grand Canyon strata, first published by Clifford Burdick in 1966.
• "Creation Research Society Studies on PreCambrian Pollen: Part II - Experiments On Atmospheric Pollen Contamination Of Microscope Slides," CRSQ Vol 23, pp 151 - 153 Attempt to demonstrate whether the data could have been caused by contamination from modern pollen.
• "Creation Research Society Studies on PreCambrian Pollen: Part III: A Pollen Analysis Of Hakatia shale And Other Grand Canyon Rocks," CRSQ Vol. 24, pp 173 - 182 The data from the repeated work showing extinct species of modern types of pollens.
• "Mississippian And Cambrian Strata Interbedding: 200 Million Years Hiatus In Question," CRSQ Vol. 23, pp 160 - 167 The Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing between the Cambrian and Mississippian periods and the latter two are mixed and mingled where they meet.
• "PreCambrian Pollen - A Response," "Comment On 'Mississippian and Cambrian Strata Interbedding,'" "A Reply To James Moore's Comment On 'Mississippian and Cambrian Interbedding,'" Letters To the Editor, CRSQ Vol. 33, pp 239 - 247 Discussion of the objections that were voiced over the years.

edit - darn. access problems. looks like you need to access these through this page: http://www.tccsa.tc/articles.html

 

[laptoppop]

Even outside the Bible?!?!?!?

of course. I have no problem with general revelation -- as long as it is consistent with the special revelation.

You guessed it! CRSQ isn't a science journal. You can tell because you'll notice that the scientific method isn't followed. For example, where in the world are the methods outlined as to how to replicate the authors' findings??? How does one isolate Precambrian pollen spores?

If you care to read the links I just posted, the methodologies are detailed quite completely.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

of course. I have no problem with general revelation -- as long as it is consistent with the special revelation.

the wider question is how do you determine the meaning of special revelation without the context provided for it by general.

for example, the OT talks about Jerusalem, where is Jerusalem? that question belongs to general revelation, there is no map in the Bible, no GPS coordinates.

for another example, what books are in the Bible, the very canon itself is part, not of special but of general revelation, in particular the field of church history.

for yet another, what does the word hesed mean? Linguistic, cultural and anthropological context are again part of general revelation. you can not even begin to think about translating or even reading scripture without reference to numerous dictionaries, word lists etc which all exist again, not in special but in general revelation.

so again i'll ask, how can you even begin to determine the meaning of, your interpretation of Scripture without reference to numerous and important extra-Biblical references drawn from general revelation????

 

[laptoppop]

Since most of the things you cited are consistent with the special revelation, I have no problem with them. However, if by special revelation God told me something clearly that seemed to violate my understanding of the universe, I'd have to belive Him, not my own perceptions -- much like Abraham made ready to sacrifice his own son. I must prefer the special revelation over the general. Of course, the counter argument is that each person has their own private interpretation of the Scriptures, so how can we trust any of them? This argument, pressed to its limits, argues against all faith, and goes against God's ability to communicate what He wants said. (its also against the oft-quoted scripture in Peter)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Since most of the things you cited are consistent with the special revelation, I have no problem with them.

the canon, the very table of contents in your Bible, the list of what is authoritative and inspired is NOT part of the Bible itself, it is in general revelation and exists in at least 5 variations. CONSISTENT with? what a simple way to dismiss an extraordinary problem !!!!!

 

[laptoppop]

Since most of the things you cited are consistent with the special revelation, I have no problem with them.

the canon, the very table of contents in your Bible, the list of what is authoritative and inspired is NOT part of the Bible itself, it is in general revelation and exists in at least 5 variations. CONSISTENT with? what a simple way to dismiss an extraordinary problem !!!!!

That's nothing
Where my theology gets real messy is in that I believe in the leading of the Holy Spirit -- in God working directly in our lives. It makes the canon easy -- the HS led the early church fathers to cannonize what was already agreed upon -- but it makes life interesting!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That's nothing
Where my theology gets real messy is in that I believe in the leading of the Holy Spirit -- in God working directly in our lives. It makes the canon easy -- the HS led the early church fathers to cannonize what was already agreed upon -- but it makes life interesting!

nonetheless, that guidance is not part of the Scripture, it exists in history. You can not even know what to read as Scripture without reference to history and how it supplies the list of books to put into your version of the Bible. It is that point that:
of course. I have no problem with general revelation -- as long as it is consistent with the special revelation.

makes this so very problematic.

You can not determine what is consistent with special revelation without consulting general revelation to begin the whole process of even opening up the book. From the moment you pick up a particular Bible, it must reflect a particular canon, the information as to which books and which parts of books is including in your particular Bible is not part of the Bible it is a specific history. And you have a number of conflicting communities printing their own Bibles as a direct result. Every Bible incorporates this specific history from the very moment the publishers choose which books to include.

Your issue is that special revelation interprets general, but the fact is, before you even pick up a specific Bible, you have by NECESSITY allowed general revelation to write the table of contents.

 

[laptoppop]

Are you suggesting we place the general revelation as more authoritative than the special revelation? Note that the special revelation includes much more than Scripture -- it includes the incarnation and any guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are you suggesting we place the general revelation as more authoritative than the special revelation? Note that the special revelation includes much more than Scripture -- it includes the incarnation and any guidance from the Holy Spirit.

you broaden the claim i've made.
you say:
I have no problem with general revelation -- as long as it is consistent with the special revelation.

and in response i insist that in the very act of picking up a specific Bible, that incorporates a particular list of books, you have already allowed general revelation to trump special. History tells you what the canon is, the list is not in the Bible, it's is not in the incarnation, it is not in any guidance from the Holy Spirit except as expressed in a specific community's history.

my point is, from the very beginning general and special revelation have a very complex interaction, this simple:
I have no problem with general revelation -- as long as it is consistent with the special revelation. is not actually how you even do it. You do not even know what books are supposed to be in your particular Bible without consultation with history.

my big point is that you can not read the Bible without a constant interaction with numerous pieces of the world. You must consult dictionaries, maps, commentaries etc etc. just to begin to understand and read it. It is not that general revelation is more authoritative it is that it is an essential part of the process of reading and interpretating Scripture from the very beginning, what specific Bible do you pick up to read?

 

[laptoppop]

I think for the most part we are in violent agreement here. I have been resistant primarily because I am anticipating where I think you might be trying to go with this. The problem is not in using general revelation.

(I would point out that it is our relationship much more than our studying that is important. The people in the early church probably had a literacy rate of around 5%. They only had some portion of the scriptures read aloud to them. But they did just fine and flourished.)

The problem is what to do when general revelation and special revelation (in particular scripture) are perceived as being in conflict. I would say that in such cases we should examine both our interpretation of scripture and our understanding of the general revelation. I am always very leery of forming doctrinal statements based on general revelation when so often we have clear guidance in the scriptures. I think we learn more from the Potter's love letter than we do from looking at His pot.

I think we need to be especially careful about the presuppositions and assumptions we carry into our perceptions and opinions. For example, we need to be careful and recognize the limits of the scientific menthod which by design and definition bypasses any thought of the supernatural. I live in a universe with an active caring God, not a God who does not work or do anything. Therefore the scientific method is assuming a universe different than mine. Many times that is not a problem - but not always.

So the bottom line is how we act when we perceive the two types of revelation to be in conflict. Interestingly, I suspect on a practical level we would act much the same, searching both the scriptures and other literature to improve our knowledge. Theoretically, I would guess that I would give more priority to my view of scripture over commonly held scientific viewpoints than you would. I am not surprised by evidence against evolution, and you are not surprised by evidence against YEC because each is seen as being consistent with their view of scripture. (I'm right, btw )

When we see new evidence, if it fits into our existing interpretative framework, it is accepted more readily than if it conflicts.

So when I see evidence which suggests that a global flood is consistent with the geologic column, I am predisposed to accept it - you are predisposed to reject it. When I hear of pollen in precambrian strata I have no problem - you require more proof. When I hear of speciation, I am skeptical, and press for details, and look for loopholes -- you are more predisposed to accept it.

One of the key elements of science is skeptisism. Scientific examination should always be forced to "prove it", even if it is consistent with commonly held beliefs. It is not clear that skeptisism is quite the same way in matters of faith. Yes, we are called to test all things -- but there is the second part -- and hold on to that which is good. As God reveals parts of His nature and plan, we should remember what He has taught us and cling to it.

 

[shernren]

When we see new evidence, if it fits into our existing interpretative framework, it is accepted more readily than if it conflicts.

So when I see evidence which suggests that a global flood is consistent with the geologic column, I am predisposed to accept it - you are predisposed to reject it. When I hear of pollen in precambrian strata I have no problem - you require more proof. When I hear of speciation, I am skeptical, and press for details, and look for loopholes -- you are more predisposed to accept it.

One of the key elements of science is skeptisism. Scientific examination should always be forced to "prove it", even if it is consistent with commonly held beliefs. It is not clear that skeptisism is quite the same way in matters of faith. Yes, we are called to test all things -- but there is the second part -- and hold on to that which is good. As God reveals parts of His nature and plan, we should remember what He has taught us and cling to it.

And yet frameworks do not determine reality - rather, reality determines the validity of our frameworks. (In what sense is a framework "valid" or "invalid", if all evidence is interpreted through a framework? I find the entire creationist conception of frameworks / presuppositions extremely sloppy, one moment presuppositions are unfalsifiable and the next the evolutionist framework is being falsified, and that is one of my major difficulties in understanding the creationist paradigm.) Whether I am less inclined to accept that Precambrian strata contain pollen, or you are more inclined to accept it, the fact remains that there are no pollen in Precambrian strata and that reality simply doesn't give a whit about what anyone else thinks about that.

Being less skeptical about Precambrian pollen will not make them any more existent.

 

[laptoppop]

I didn't say that presuppositions are unfalsifiable. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. I think we can agree that recognizing our own presuppositions and challenging them is a healthy part of intellectual honesty.

Being more skeptical about Precambrian pollen will not make them any less existent. <grin>

 

[Assyrian]

I think we learn more from the Potter's love letter than we do from looking at His pot.

We certainly learn more about the Potter and his relationship with his beloved from the love letter. But if you want to learn about how he makes pots...

...So when I see evidence which suggests that a global flood is consistent with the geologic column, I am predisposed to accept it - you are predisposed to reject it. When I hear of pollen in precambrian strata I have no problem - you require more proof. When I hear of speciation, I am skeptical, and press for details, and look for loopholes -- you are more predisposed to accept it.

This is reasonable. 'Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof'. To you evolution and an ancient universe seems extraordinary, to us a young earth and global flood seem without foundation. Both sides rightly demand very strong evidence before they would shift paradigms. But then I am speaking as a former YEC who changed because the YEC case did not stand scrutiny while the evidence for an ancient earth was compelling.

The claims of science are rigorously tested, even when they fit scientists' worldview. However I do not find that with YEC.

The first reference rmw gave was a post from Glenn Morton http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0104.html

1 The first criteria is color. As organic matter ages, it becomes darker. This is especially true as the rock is buried and the temperature rises. If the pollen is clear or very light yellow then they are modern introduced forms. Remember that the Hakatai shale has been buried by more than 7,000 feet before the erosion began removing the sediment. At such a depth of burial the temperature would be approximately 190 deg F and the organic matter would turn brown.

2. One must demonstrate that the Hakatai shale is not so thermally mature (cooked) that nothing organic could have survived. With all the volcanism, this rock is cooked. I looked up in the Lexicon of Geologic names of the United States, and found that the Hakatai contains diabase volcanic sills. This means that the lava intruded into the Hakatai.

3. The pollen grains should be flattened. My friend says that the pollen grains are compressed when buried in sedimentary rocks. This is especially true if the burial is as deep as the Hakatai was buried.

How did the pollen survive the volcanic intrusion? Even assuming it survived the lava sheets, is the pollen flattened and turned brown?

http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi...tionresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a1.html

Photographs of the slides, taken by George Howe, and scanning electron photomicrographs, taken by E. L. Williams, were sent to an experienced palynologist for examination. This palynologist was not aware of the source from which the samples had been obtained. This was done so that objective analyses could be obtained from an expert in the field not associated with the CRS group. According to his best judgment, pine pollen, Ephedra-like pollen, angiosperm-type pollen, fungal spores, and possible algal cells were present on some of the slides. Howe and his co-workers concluded that these results support Burdick's claims of having discovered fossil pollen grains of gymnosperms and angiosperms in the Precambrian Hakatai Shale.

This is an interesting technique. Send it to an expert but don't tell him how old the rock is supposed to be. It sounds good on one level, you ensure he is looking at the sample without 'evolutionary blinkers'. He identified the pollen as modern (including interestingly, plantain which is a European import.) But he was not told the pollen was supposed to be fossilised. He was not told the pollen was supposed to have been buried under 2 kilometers of rock, however long it had been there. So in spite of not asking the expert if it was fossil pollen as opposed to fresh, they conclude the expert's report supports Burdick's claims.

In fact, if you read http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/grand_canyon_3.pdf you will find they separated out the pollen by density. The pollen they found had a density of 1.5g/cm3, the same as ordinary pollen. But I would imagine genuine fossilised pollen would be a bit heavier.