Dinosaur tracks, Pollen and Tsunami's

Glenn Morton (grmorton@psyberlink.net)
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:30:17 -0500

At 09:16 PM 9/19/97, Allen Roy wrote of how dinosaurs in NJ could have left
footprints on layer after layer after layer:

>Here at Grand Canyon the top layer is the Kaibab Limestone, however this
>does not represent the top layer of the entire geologic column that is
>known to have been here. To the North the Kaibab slips under about
>10,000 ft of sediments and to the East it goes under about 4,000 ft of
>sediments. And there are several mountains of sediments setting here and
>there on the Kaibab which are remnants of the overlying sediments. It is
>proposed that during the first 150 days of the breaking up of the crust
>(the fountains {reservoir basins} of the deep), the deep layers of
>sediment were deposited. Then, in this region, the Rockies, the Colorado
>Plateau, and associated mountain systems were faulted or warped upward.
>Waters drained off the highlands and strip sediments off down to what is
>now the Kaibab limestone. Then the Kaibab upwarp lifted up and then the
>canyon formed. But the point is that many layers of sediemnts,
>including many with animal tracks, were stripped away toward the end of
>the Flood.
>I imagine that similar events occurred there in NJ, such that the
>sediments still left there do not represent everthing that was originally
>deposited there. Thus they may well represent only a part of the 150
>days rather than the entire year.

If you had actually looked at the geology of NJ and surrounding regions you
would know that the uppermost beds in the Neward basin might be lowermost
Jurassic,which is the age after the Triassic. Other than that, the Jurassic
is totally unknown on the North American east coast on shore. If you go
about 50 miles offshore, or so, you get a wedge of Jurassic sediment that is
buried under a huge pile of Cretaceous and Tertiary strata. Since this is
on the continental shelf and slope, it is difficult to see how it could have
been higher than the triassic Newark basin onshore. Thus this could not have
been the hiding place of the dinosaurs. Were the Appalachians the hiding
place? Well, if they were, why are there no dinosaur prints in the
Appalachian sediments?

>This makes your calculated deposition rates too slow.

Yes, if there was additional sediments above the Triassic it would make my
sedimentation rate of .65 m/day too slow but that doesn't help your case.
the more rapid the deposition, the less likely it is that anything could
> As for the
>dinosaurs eating, sleeping and such. It would not be that hard for an
>large animal such as that to go with outeating and sleeping for long
>periods of time. And, in the end, they died.

What experiments could you cite or which you have performed on large animals
which enables you to determine this. Have you kept elephants and giraffes
awake for weeks on end?
>> >> Who is your authority that tsunami deposits will explain the geologic
>> >> column? Cite a scientific journal please.
>Even I don't propose that the entire GC can be explained by tsunami
>deposits. (my former posts make that clear). however, it is still funny
>to think that uniformiarian devoted journals would consider such ideas
>for the GC as a whole.

I looked up that article. They are talking about a 500 year old tsunami
deposit which lies along the shore of Vancouver Island. What is the big
deal. Geologists have seen tsunami's occur today and so they are part of
the repertoire of actually occurring events.

>> >The only ones who can tell you if the pollen was flattened or not were
>> >the original researchers. Since one is a close personal friend of yours,
>> >give him a call.
>> This is interesting. You are acting like the pollen proves your point but
>> you can't answer questions about the work. Obviously you have a lot of
>> faith in the men who performed this work, even though the work was not their
>> area of expertise.
>I have never said that pollen proves any of my theories. I started this
>discussion to see what people thought. I have found that because the men
>claim to have found pollen where pollen is not 'supposed' to be then their
>work is automatically wrong or called contaminated without benefit of
>standard scientific reexamination. And, since the men were not expert
>specialists in palyonology, they have no credibility.

Wait a minute. Both of those claims are wrong. You can not claim that there
was no attempt to repeat Burdick's work. That is historically false and is
admitted by Howe. Howe writes of the Solomon and Morgan attempt:
**begin quote***
"Two workers who did not go on the collecting trip but were
asked to analyze the the samples make the following report in

'The trip could not be made at that time so Burdick found
someone to do the collecting and upon his return asked to
have the samples extracted for pollen with safeguards
against contamination. The extractions were done as
requested. The results were total palynological sterility;
i.e. no pollen grains or land plant spores of any kind
were seen (Solomon and Morgan ---1973, p. 10).

"Burdick attributed these negative 1970 results of Solomon and
Morgan to problems with their processing of samples. He reported

'...Mr. Delevan then turned the samples over to Mr. Morgan,
a palynologist from the geochronology department of the
University of Arizona for processing. Mr. Morgan used the
acid technique which has been the vogue in the past. When
the spore residue was plaaced on slides and examined
through the University microscopes, they were so clouded
with undissolved rock salt that if spores were present they
were completely obscured. Therefore, I would conclude that
the University of Arizona phase of the investigation was
inconclusive. however, sufficient samples were available
for a repeat performance, but Mr. Morgan has been too busy
to repeat the analyses.' (Burdick, 1972, p. 26)

Other comments by Burdick concerning this interesting phase of the
repeat analysis include the following:

'I would have had some definite results from the redoing of
the Grand Canyon pollen had it not been that the graduate
students under Dr. Kremp messed up the processing in the
laboratory. They don't seem interested in re-doing the
samples' (2/25/71)
'The University of Arizona messed up the samples they
processed, so we have to depend on the Loma Linda samples
(2/19/71).'"George F. Howe, "Creation Research Society
Studies on Precambrian Pollen: Part 1--A Review," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 23:3(Dec. 1986), pp 99-104, p.
**end quote***
Notice what Burdick said about what would have happened IF. Burdick's claim
to know the outcome of the experiment prior to its repetition is ludicrous.
No one can know the outcome of an experiment prior to its performance.
Solomon and Morgan ["Challenge Taken Up", Geotimes, 1973, 18(6):10] did
repeat the experiment and they are not creationists. Did they mess up? We
have only Burdick's opinion, nothing else. Secondly, Chadwick tried to
repeat the experiment. He failed to find confirmation. So you can't say
that no one tried to confirm this thing!!!!

As to your statement "since the men were not expert specialists in
palyonology, they have no credibility."

What kind of credibility would you give me, a geophysicist, if I were to
advise you how to cure cancer? You would give me NO credibility. If I did
advise you, you might tell the medical authorities that I was practicing
medicine without a license. Lets see if the lack of expertise showed up.
Remember the color issue in the pollen? Young pollen is clear; old pollen is
dark. Well, Howe et al, found only CLEAR pollen. Their lack of familiarity
with what happens to old pollen clearly shows through. Even Burdick agrees
that clear pollen is probably contamination. Burdick says,

"The coloration is deep red, quite different from the lack of coloration of
many recent spores." Clifford Burdick, "Microflora of the Grand Canyon",
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1966, p. 45.

All of Howe's pine pollen were clear. All I have to do to reject Howe's work
as contamination is to believe Burdick's statement above that recent pollen
is colorless! I believe Burdick on this point. Conclusion: Howe's pollen was


Foundation, Fall and Flood