Allen,
I want to clarify something for you. BOTH Art and George Howe are friends
of mine. I have had many dinners with Art discussing all sorts of things. I
disagree with both of them in their perspectives and outlook on how to
resolve the science/creation issues. George Howe has remained a friend in
spite of my change in view point. I would have told George about the
discussion, but I don't know if he even has an e-mail address. Without
that, one cannot access this board. While I have absolutely no doubt that
George believes he has found pollen in the Hakatai, (George is an honest
individual) he is no more exempt from being mistaken than anyone else. I
raised two main issues on the pollen, their color and their shape. Ancient
pollen should be dark, not clear and it should be flattened. NONE of the
pollen George shows in his article fits these two criteria.
Here are the color comments on his pictured pollen made by his anonymous
palynologist who was not informed that they were from the Hakatai.
sample m pollen
Figure 1 clear light brown
Figure 2 clear light reddish-brown
Figure 3 dried pollen
Figure 4 clear
Figure 5 clear
Figure 6 spores
Figure 7 Clear
Figure 8 clear
Figure 9 Clear
Figure 10 Dark orange undefined
Figure 11 Dark brownish orageng spore
Figure 12 Black brown fungal spore
none of them are flattened.
sample p pollen
Figure 17 bright gree color specked iwth yellow opaque algae cell
Figure 18 opaque ?
Figure 19 grey orange clear could be pollen
Figure 20 grey opaque ?
Figure 21 Brownish-orange clear pollen
Figure 22 brownish tint, clear pinus
Figure 23 brownish almost colorless clear
Figure 24 Brownish color, clear
Figure 25 yellowish brown color cloudy pollen
Figure 26a pollen
Figure 32a golden brown color opaque "mystery to me!"
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. 178
None of these were flattened. I would conclude from the evidence that this
is modern contamination, not ancient pollen.
What I see from you below, is an inability to address the specific issues I
raised above. Instead you divert to issues of who is interviewed and who
isn't. The important thing is the evidence and the answers to that issue not
who is interviewed. Answer the objection above!
While you are at it, I am still awaiting a detailed discussion of how the
geologic column described on my web page came about in a flood. And while
you are at that, why don't you explain where all the modern animals were
during the flood. Only 2 species of living animals have been found in
Miocene rocks and only 282 in Pliocene. If the fossils are the remains of
the preflood world, why don't we find more living species as fossils in
older rocks?
>2. It seems like a 1,000 years ago when I had an elementary course at
>Johns Hopkins University in the "Scientific Method." Almost on the first
>day of class, the professor discussed this "self-evident" forbidden
>method, a method some claim is a part of the "scientific method," the
>Authority Criterion. A few (simplistic) illustrations are sufficient, I
>believe. (1) This is one of the worst illustrations of the use of this
>forbidden method. The news media seems interested in "compressed"
>information that needs to be "comprehended" by the general public. (Is
>this possible?) Scientist, Professor A, has a theory. The reporter
>doesn't even go to interview Professor A, but rather interviews Professor
>B, a professor who holds The Such and Such Chair in Theoretical Physics at
>Big Time University. The reporter asks B whether or not A's theory is
>correct. Professor B replies, "Of course not. Based upon my experience, I
>am convinced that it is impossible and it is totally incorrect." (I point
>out that Professor B is convinced of this even though he has not read the
>theory since A's conclusions contradict the content of some of Professor
>B's philosophical hypotheses - hypotheses consistent with but not a
>specific part of Professor B's favorite theory. How could A's be correct?)
>The reporter asks, "Can you tell me why it is impossible?" Professor B
>answers, "Well, there are many technical reasons I am sure that I could go
>into that your readers would not understand, but you should trust me, it
>is complete nonsence. Indeed, it shows how incompetent A is in scientific
>matters." Now the reporter does not actually use all of what Professor B
>has said in a small article. What the reporter does is to write that "As
>to Professor A's so-called theory, Professor B, The Such and Such
>Professor of Theoretical Physics at Big Time University, is convinced that
>"it is impossible and totally incorrect" and, indeed, states that "it is
>complete nonsence."
>
So, do you know if George has an e-mail address? I don't. Invite him here
nothing is stopping you.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm