Re: pollen test of Flood geology
Arthur V. Chadwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:22:16 -0700
At 10:06 AM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>In the second place you should be aware that there were many reports in
>>Science and Nature (ten or more papers) several decades ago of modern type
>>pollen and spores ("Eocene") from the Cambrian strata of Punjab, by people
>>of a variety of religions and ethnicities. A cadre of western geologists
>>even went to investigate the situation and concluded that the strata from
>>which Singh and others were getting pollen were indeed Cambrian. The
>>Indian investigators insisted that they were Eocene based on the pollen and
>>spores. The case has been settled by declaring the problem intractible and
>>off limits to further exploration by the Indian paleobotanists.
>The Silurian and Devonian paleontology of the Himalayas is a total mess
>because a geologist at the University of Panjab, over a period of twenty
>years or so, wrote papers claiming to find fossils that actually were
>obtained from localities around the world (commercially available
>specimens, etc.) Do you know whether different people have verified the
>source of the samples? The locality data for the fraudulent material was
>generally vague, inaccurate, and in remote, politically instable regions.
>I would expect an apparent discrepancy such as this would get more work,
>not a ban, similar to the supposed juxtaposition of Cretaceous and Eocene
>shells here in North Carolina (Tuomey, 1853).
The work was repeatedly verified by many individuals from the source rocks.
You can go there (if you dare!) and obtain samples from the outcrops
declared by a large team of western geologists and you will find what they
The problem with explaining the sequence of pollen, foraminifera,
>radiolarians, dinoflagellates, calcareous nannofossils, etc. by any global
>flood hypothesis is that all of them should have been alive at the same
>time (before the flood) in the same place.
You must mean on the globe, I assume, not in the oceans or in specific oceans.
A flood cannot sort them out
>into a regular order, no matter what it does.
Again, you are making a big assumption that you can decide what could or
could not have hppened based on your own unpublished presuppositions about
what did or did not happen. I do not mean this as a criticism. We all
assume we can imagine what went on. But you are still kicking a straw man.