Re: pollen test of Flood geology
Allen Roy (allen@InfoMagic.com)
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:10:11 -0700 (MST)
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
> What "flood hypothesis" is this? It seems to me you would need to start
> with a very detailed model to even begin to predict what we would expect.
> We are at least a generation premature, because at this point I am not
> aware of anyone with sufficient detail about the paleogeography and ecology
> of the preflood world or the sedimentological processes of the flood itself
> to be able to predict what one might or might not expect to see in the
> grand experiment.
> There are only a handful of committed practicing scientists who are even
> looking at the possibility, and to my knowledge they could not put forth a
> model that would allow the kind of prediction you are trying to make.
It may seem strange but I agree with you on this point. I have been
proposing a very generalised model based on my word study of "Fountains"
of the great deep. I conclude that the word "fountains" should be
understood as conatiners or basins (as it is used in 'fountain' pen).
Thus the continual breakup for 150 days or so of the crustrial oceanic
basins would be a catastrophic cause for high energy movement of water.
As to how possible fossil pollen in supposed precambrian rocks fits into
such a model, I haven't a clue yet.
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see: