Re: Dinosaur tracks, Pollen and Tsunami's

Allen Roy (
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:21:47 -0700 (MST)

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:
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?

I don't propose that they were hiding anywere. When waves came, they were
swimming in the water. When the waters drained away, they found their
footing on the new layers and made tracks.

> > 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

Admitedly, my comment is based on the assumption that larger animals
would have more reserves than smaller animals, especially when pumped
full of adrenalin. What experiments can you cite that large animals do
not have such reserves?

> 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.

Actually, the top layer is dated to 1964, the second layer is estimated
at about 500 years and the third at 800 years (several other layers were
discovered below, but were not studied). But, the ages are totally
irrelevant. The point was (from both quotes) that there is so far no
consensus on what tsunami deposits should look like.

Not that long ago, (1920s??) the structure of turbidites were first
studied. These structures were then found to make up a good sized portion
of the geologic record. Many interpretations of strata deposition had to
be rewritten. It has only been since the proposals of a K-T extinction
caused by bolide impact, that some propose that mega-tsunami depositions
may be found in the geologic record. Studies like the one done on
vancouver island are steps in trying to acertain what tsunami deposits
should look like, so that it may be possible to identify tsunmi deposition
in the geologic record. As the first quote stated, so far there is no
consensus, but I expect that there will be over time. And I expect that
the number of sediment layers that will need to be reinterpreted will
rival that of turbidites.

> > 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. ..... So you can't say
> that no one tried to confirm this thing!!!!

The men I was refering to were Howe, and not to Burdick.

> 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.

I understand that Howe is a botanist who has published several articles in
peer reviewed journals on assorted topics dealing with palyonology. He
knows how to follow lab instructions and set up conditions to avoid
contamination. his expertice may not be geology per se, but to say he does
not know pollen and such is a bit of an overstatment.

Anyone can give advice on the cure of cancer. If you were to perscribe
medicines with out a liscence then that could be trouble.

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.

Despite Chadwicks rather pontifical statement that pollen is NEVER
silicified, it seems to me that it is entirely possible. And silicates
can be clear or colored. Until the issue of silification is settled,
color and deformation are side issues.

Allen Roy
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see:
Daniel Prophecy Studies: