Re: Precambrian Pollen

Allen Roy (
Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:25:22 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:
> At 12:08 AM 9/5/97, Allen Roy wrote:
> >I tell you what, Glenn, when you get around to reading the above article,
> >then we'll talk.
> I tell you what, Allen, I read it yesterday and made a print of it. Lets
> talk and please quit presuming that no one reads what you suggest.
Ok. From what you wrote it appeared that you had not read it.
Specifically with regard to the procedures they followed in taking and
preparing samples. I thought they made it clear that they used standard
operating procedure (that is, by-the-book methodology). They did the same
thing that any other geologist must do under any other circumstances.

It seems that the only reason anyone is questioning their abilities is
because they found what was not 'supposed' to be there. They also point out
that they did not expect to find anything either, yet they did.

They make the point that they may have found the pollin because they did
not subject the samples to hydrofloric acid. Apparently, the fossils were
silicafied (sorry if that is not a real word :-). The silicates would
have been disolved in the hydrofloric acid, while actual pollin would have
been unaffected.

By comparison, they may not have been 'as careful as' the other fellow,
however, that does not make them slopy. They did what was necessary and
what would under any other circumstance be accepted.

And if the other fellow subject his samples to the hydrofloric bath
then he may well have disolved any silicate fossils, and so naturally not
have found anything.

Allen Roy
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see: