Re: a simple test of Flood geology

Allen Roy (
Sun, 7 Sep 1997 17:32:35 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, John P. McKiness wrote:
> I was only able to get and read the file you mention above, the 3 articles
> in vols. 22 and 23 of the CRS Quarterly, and the 1973 letter to the editor
> in Geotimes [vol 18(June) p. 9-10]. None of the other articles (including
> Burdick's original) are available here in the U. of Iowa library. Since I
> do not know much about the geology of the Grand Canyon and haven't read all
> the articles, there isn't much I can say.

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.

Allen Roy
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see: