Why are you so distrustful of your fellow human beings?
I don't know that data wasn't
>fudged nor that extreme bias led the researchers to making improper
>decisions.
>
>On Creation Scientist reported finding pollen in Precambrian rock at the
>Grand Canyon during his Ph.D. program. Any Evolutionist wouldn't hesitate
>for a moment to dismiss the find, even if the Evolutionist made the find.
>And, don't even think about wasting time carbon dating a dinosaur bone. We
>don't want to find what isn't suppose to be.
What Burdick found did not have the appearance of old pollen. As pollen
ages, it gets darker and darker. The weight of the rock also flattens the
pollen. None of the pollen Burdick or his successors found fit that
description.
Art Chadwick, a believer in a Global flood, tried to repeat Burdick's
experiment. He took all sorts of precautions against contamination. He
found NO pollen. He wrote:
"In 1971 I obtained a collecting permit from the National Park Service and
accompanied C. L. Burdick to the Grand Canyon. His previous sample
localities were relocated and new samples were collected, returned to my
laboratory at Loma Linda University and processed by C. L. Burdick using
techniques similar to those he had employed in his earlier work at the
University of Arizona. On the basis of results from these samples, Burdick
(1972) published a second paper claiming substantiation of his earlier
paper. It is unfortunate that Burdick chose to publish the results of this
work without waiting for independent confirmation. In this second article,
as in the first, he figures several objects which are not identifiable and
several pollen grains which are either modern or of modern affinities.
However, he made the claim {challenged in a subsequent cautiously worded
report (Chadwick, Debord and Fisk, 1973)} that these data supported his
previous findings. In a sense they do, in that both papers figure grains
which are clearly modern in aspect and indistinguisable from grains
abundant in the present pollen spectrum of the Grand Canyon region.
However, the conclusion that these findings support the concept of
Precambrian higher plants is a non sequitur until all cause for concern
regarding modern contamination has been eliminated. It was with this goal
in mind that the work reported herein was undertaken." ~ Arthur V.
Chadwick, "Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon - A Reexamination,"
Origins, 8:1, 1981, pp 7-8 (7-12)
"A total of fifty samples from the same strata which Burdick had studied
were processed. All slides were completely scanned. No single example of
an authentic pollen grain was obtained from any of these samples. In fact,
the slides produced from the Hakatai Formation were in most cases
completely free from any material of biologic origin, modern or fossil." ~
Arthur V. Chadwick, "Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon - A
Reexamination," Origins, 8:1, 1981, pp 8 (pp.7-12)
"1) No rigorous attempt was apparently made by Burdick to evaluate
personally the modern pollen rain in the Grand Canyon. A single sample of
soil from near one of the modern collecting sites could have completely
satisfied Burdick as to the source of most of the grains he has reported.
A typical analysis of a site near where Burdick collected his Hakatai
samples yielded the following profile: bisaccate pollen (conifers) 30%;
juniper 12%; ephedra 16%; various species of angiosperms (42%)
(Siegels,1971). Although the poor quality of the photographs in the plates
of Burdick's first paper makes definite assignments impossible, one can
approximate the composition of the flora he reports. Of the grains
identifiable as pollen or spores in the two papers by Burdick (n=18), 7 or
37% are bisaccates, 2 or 11% are possibly juniper. Ephedra pollen
constitute 11% and angiosperms and unassignable grains 34%. Thus even with
this small sample size, Burdick's grains approximate the modern pollen rain
found in surface sample in the area of the Grand Canyon where he collected
his samples." ~ Arthur V. Chadwick, "Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon
- A Reexamination," Origins, 8:1, 1981, pp 9-118 (pp.7-12)
George Howe and others tried to repeat Burdicks experiment. Here are the
captions from his photos of the 'Precambrian pollen' they found. Note that
none of them are dark colored. they are clear just like modern 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 orange spore
Figure 12 Black brown fungal spore
none of them are flattened.
sample p pollen
Figure 17 bright gree color specked with 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 1II--A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,"
Creation Research Society Quarterly 24:4(March1988), pp 173-182
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm