Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:42:36 -0800

At 01:35 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
>which started as a discussion with Art in April 1996. I think he's being
>in mentioning this example as "evidence" against the geologic time scale.

Did I say that? I think I used it as an example of a salt contaminated
with "modern"types of pollen. Many studies were done on the salt, much to
the embarassment of the Indian paleobotanists who were very uncomfortable
being in the center of an international controversy at that time. It lay
dormant for many years because the Indians essentially declared the whole
problem off limits. I can assure some very critical palynological studies
were done to avoid the possibility of modern contamination, including the
spcific and careful sampling of anhydrite layers that could not possibly be
the result of flow or any other non-depositional process. The Indian
scientists involved were emphatic that the pollen was not due to modern
contamination, and that it was original in the salt. The geologists were
equally emphatic that the sediments were Cambrian, and that there was no
evidence of thrusting associated with the deposits. I have read ALL of the
rellevant papers, and I can assure you there is nothing disingenuous about
them or my comments. I think it is a bit premature to declare the problem
solved by fiat. It is still very much an unsolved problem. Finding a
sample with no pollen is something I am very familiar with. I also do not
think the pollen are Cambrian. But the problem is in no way solved. Not
even close.