Re: Flood Model [was Early Cambrian explosion]

Steven H. Schimmrich (sschimmr@ursa.calvin.edu)
Tue, 09 Feb 1999 16:04:32 -0500

At 02:42 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Art Chadwick wrote:
>
> 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 disingenuous 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.

You said, and I quote, that:

> There are some halites, such as the famous Cambrian salts of Punjab province
> in India that are loaded with palynomorphs and insect fragments of putative
> "Eocene age". Now there is a salt that has pollen and junk in it. But how do
> you explain it in Cambrian salt?

Clearly implying it was a mystery and that it casts doubt upon the geologic time
scale -- especially since we all were discussing the idea that the entire sedimentary
record was deposited in a few months during a global flood (making the time scale a
delusion).

The problem I have with people like you or Austin bringing this stuff up is that
you NEVER mention the negative evidence! You guys selectively report the data in
order to bolster your case -- a tactic which is definitely frowned upon in science
(but not, evidently, among young-earth or flood geologists). I think I clearly
documented that Austin did indeed do that in my last post and I think you were
trying to get away with it now.

- Steve.

--   Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology   Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies   Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546   sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home)   616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax)    http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/