At least you have done more the Schimmrich. You have gone to the original
> I have a couple of questions from reading though: what were the pollen
> counts (number of grains) found in the samples? Were the pollen grains
> silicified or not? (I have left Holocene samples in HF for days without
> degradation), how did they check the rock samples to eliminate the
> possibility of microfractures, and since this all started in one of the best
> palynology labs in the country (at the University of Arizona) did they do
> any follow up studies to find how the samples "were contaminated?"
These are questions that should be addressed to the authors and
researchers. A letter to the editor of CRSQ could probably put you in
contact with them. (Or, go to the CRS Web pages and email the editor).
> In another post Glenn mentioned the presence of igneous intrusions in the
> formation. Pollen and spores would not be destroyed by the intrusions
> except in the area of extreme contact metamorphism.
So far as I understand it, the samples were not taken near any igneous
intrusions. If the original articles don't say, contact the authors.
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see: