The TRVE history of the Flood...

ICANT I don't care about who thought what when. What I argue here is my own understanding of what the Flood would have done based on my own observations.; I don't care who came up with what theory.

Here is a response to Chadwick's PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON A REEXAMINATION. Fossil pollen in Grand Canyon overturns plant evolution - creation.com.Conclusion
The weight of evidence favours the conclusion that fossil pollen is contained in ‘Precambrian’ shale. This is contrary to expectations based on the accepted geological column.More Precambrian Pollen
Fossils of spores and pollen have been found in the Precambrian Roraima formation, as reported in a 1966 article in the prestigious journal Nature. That means they are at least 1,300 million, or 1.3 billion years ‘out of date’. Pollen paradox - creation.com

CRR - I'm not reading anything from a creation 'science' source. Can you point to properly published source?

Tangle: Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien, Je suis l'esprit ferm.Pardon if my french is not perfect but I'm sure you get my drift.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

CRR - my mind is entirely open, but it's been educated too. Your links are to a discredited organisation that publishes an unreviewed pile of garbage on a website.This is a science forum, if there's useful information to be discussed it needs to come from a credible scientific source.It's also a forum rule that we discuss stuff here in our own words referring to proper references when we have to.Why not have a go at that?I refer you to the rest of my tag
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Only if you ignore the facts that the pollen grains are found on fractures in the rock and do not exhibit darkening of color with age as is normal for older pollen. They also show no compression that should happen with burial under miles (as averred by Faith) of sediments. The first thing I noticed about this occurrence is that nothing has been published since the 1960's when it was first announced.Again, there is no flattening of the pollen grains as would be expected of such a strongly metamorphosed rock and it is thought that pollen grains would not even survive such a high temperature metamorphism.Once again, one researcher mentions that ultrasonic cleaning of a sample removed the pollen from the rock suggesting that the grains were confined to fractures in the rock.All the data suggest contamination by percolating meteoric water carrying pollen into a groundwater system.Here is a kind of technical article on the subject:Roraima pollen paradox - RationalWiki

In Message 5 Davidjay claims:

quote:

---

I always engage in discussions and always prove my points. But evolutionists want me to agree with their false science and false givens.

​

...

​

In an open debate, BOTH sides are required to answer questions...

---

This is good to know, because then Davidjay will obviously answer the question I have been prodding him with for a month or so. As posted in Message 3 of this thread (and in a previous thread):

Coyote writes:

​

My own archaeological research disproves the global flood ca. 4500 years ago. Research by my colleagues disproves it thousands of times over.

​

In my research I have continuity of human cultures from before to after the date of the flood, and most importantly I have mitochondrial DNA of the same type extending from before to after that date. If there was such a flood, the earlier mtDNA haplotype would be eliminated, to be replaced by a type from the Middle East.

​

A few other little details: there is no evidence of the erosional or depositional features that would necessarily associate with such a flood in the area I study.

​

But if you truly want to see the features left by flood erosion, google "channeled scablands" and look at the images. Some notable examples are from central and eastern Washington:

​

The nice thing about the flood evidence in Washington is that we can date the events and we know the cause! They occurred between 18,000 and 13,000 years ago, and resulted from formation and breakage of ice dams upstream.

​

Oh, and this evidence is about three or four times older than the purported global flood. How is it that we see the evidence of those older floods but not evidence of a much larger and much more recent flood?

​

(Answer: it didn't happen.)

​

So, don't be claiming that the flood is TRVE history. It is a belief, not a fact.

And do see my new signature for further information against evolution and evolutionaries and their fear and flight modus operandi....

Word salad doesn't answer my very specific questions.You have been ducking, dodging, and weaving to avoid answering these questions for a month.Face it, you have no answers to these questions, and can't counter the evidence--and that's clear to everyone.

Okay. You are obviously kidding.

Not kidding edge, evolutionists force evolution on students and will try and flunk them if they dont adhere to the doctrine of luck and chance. In UNiversity, they do not allow questions to be asked about evolution and its unproven science, as it is deemed a GIVEN.No one as HEREIN as well is allowed to bring up topics that disagree with evolution. Evolutionists get very upset about answering queries and just say questioners dont understand, rather than evolutionists trying to explain their unproven theories logically. They can;t and so get rather upset.... and subjective.Just believe say the evolutionists, look at all of us that just believe... believe believe.. shake those dice... and believe

You are still trying to avoid responding to the evidence I posted disproving the flood (see Message 892, above).You have no answers, eh?

Just remember, "evolutionists" are the ones who refuse to answer questions. Just keep saying that over and over.

PRECAMBRIAN POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON A REEXAMINATION
Precambrian PollenThe guy who collected the pollen is famous for incompetence.

You're not providing any citations, I notice. I also notice that you have no idea what would constitute the "wrong" place for a fossil.Finally, I note that none of this answers the point that you cannot explain the order in the fossil record. What of it? If this was a point against evolution, which it isn't, it still wouldn't answer the point that you cannot explain the order in the fossil record. No they couldn't. Separately and together, these excuses do not provide an explanation. This has been tried and failed.See here.EvC Forum: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure But we do find marine organisms above terrestrial organisms. Just not trilobites above mammals. But this is stupid shit that creationists have made up because their drivel can only be supported by telling dumb lies. And if it wasn't a bunch of dumb dirty lies, which it is, it still wouldn't answer the point that you cannot explain the order in the fossil record.