pollen test of Flood geology

Paul Arveson (arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:13:26 -0500

The thread on 'a simple test of Flood geology' has been helpful, I believe.
In terms of scientific evidence, I think we have enough findings to present
a preliminary conclusion.

To recap: Under a long time-scale of geologic history, we would expect to
find in the rocks a strong stratification of different species of pollen
(and foraminifera, by the way). Under the hypothesis of Flood geology and
the young-earth chronolgy, we would expect the pollen and other particles
to be rather widely distributed throughout the strata. All the species
were alive before the Flood, and even if there were several floods, there
would still be a wide vertical distribution of pollen species because they
are so light in weight and readily dispersed by wind and water.

Under the Flood hypothesis, then, we would expect to see all sedimentary
rocks to contain a whole range of species of pollen. Moreover, this would
the the NORMAL observation across all locations, by all palynologists of
all nations and all religions.

What all these palynologists do find, as summarized by our resident
experts, is consistent with the long time-scale of strong stratification.

There is apparently one exception: Lammerts and Burdick have reported
finding recent pollen in ancient rocks. However, these researchers happen
to be young-earth creationists -- very committed ones -- and their findings
support that view conveniently. Their small amount of data could have been
contaminated. Of course, the rest of the world may be biased against the
young-earth position, and so they (the rest of the world) conspired not to
report such observations. I am not a palynologist, but I am enough of a
scientist to know better than that.

Unless some very large amount of counterevidence is reported -- by a wide
variety of researchers, of different nations and different religions -- I
must conclude that the young-earth Flood geology hypothesis is not
consistent with the evidence.

Please don't put words in my mouth. This does NOT necessarily imply that
the Bible is wrong, or Christianity is wrong, or anything like that. It
simply means that the Flood geology hypothesis as it is commonly described
is not consistent with the evidence.

Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)