I posted some very strict rules regarding the ordering of fossils in the fossil column. Most of these rules have been known for over 150 years. Anyone with a rock hammer and a geologic map can go out and verify these rules.
IÃ‚Â´ve showed that those rules are wrong.
You are arguing that in the early 1960s, someone suggests that maybethere was some pollen in pre-cambrian rock. The location is in a remote part of the Amazon rain forest (if I got that right). This is a place that is very hard to visit and verify the findings. I have noted that everywhere this claim has been made, the results could not be verified. It would actually be quite easy to verify pollen since if you find it in a particular layer, anyone should be able to go back and get more rock to verify the claim.
I think you really didnt read the post.To the facts:
First, It was found pollens and spores twice by different persons:
Late in 1963 U. C. K. Dunsterville made an expedition to collect orchids around Cerro Venamo, at the westernmost point on the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (where this mountain is known as Wenamu Head). He noted some shale-like beds at the base of a towering cliff of Roraima sandstone and collected samples for their possible paleontological interest. G. Fournier, palynologist of the Mene Grande Oil Company, processed the samples and recovered well-preserved pollen and spores.
Subsequently, L. Nijssen and J. A. Sulek, palynologists of CompaÃƒÂ±ÃƒÂa Shell de Venezuela and Creole Petroleum Corporation, respectively, processed other pieces and recovered identical plant microfossils.
Second, it was organized a expedition:
This discovery of pollen and spores in a formation of supposed Precambrian age was so remarkable that a reconnaissance expedition of qualified geologists was organized to verify the facts of the case.
During April, 1964, with the assistance of personnel and vehicles of the Ministerio de Minas e Hidrocarburos, the locality was visited by a party which included N. Benain, P. J. BermÃƒÂºdez, A. Espejo, U. Fournier, A. MenÃƒÂ©ndez, J. A. Sulek and F. Wright. They confirmed the salient facts as recorded by Dunsterville. The shale-like beds, being less competent, had eroded away below the massive Roraima sandstone, leaving an undercut extending 10-12 ft. inwards at the base of the cliff. The original samples were loose, weathered fragments from the talus slope below. New samples of unweathered rock were collected from the face of the undercut.
Third, it was verified by three different palynologists:
On their return to Caracas, the three palynologists made independent investigations of the new samples. Utmost care was taken to avoid any possibility of superÃ‚Âficial contamination. The rock cleaves along finely laminated bedding planes which are coated with limonite. Every effort was made to avoid these planes and some of the pieces processed were the central nubs left after chipping away the external parts of large blocks of the rock, which was dense enough to sound when struck with a hammer. Nevertheless, microfossils of the same type as before were recovered.
Despite the thousands of geologist and paleontologists (and the millions of amateur fossil hunters) looking for these out of place fossils, you think it is quite ok if we throw out all that evidence because of this 'possible' bit of data from one rock in the jungles of Brazil. Is that right?
No, as I have showed there are many similar cases.
I can assure you, if there was clear replicable evidence somewhere accessible that would upset the standard view (that I set up in the first post), there would be swarms of graduate students removing rock, testing it and writing a thesis. If any graduate student anywhere could really prove that pre-cambrian pollen existed, they would be on the cover of Science and Nature. And I can assure you, grad students and faculty want the attention if the data is solid.
No, because evolution is a religion.They dont want to give up their religion.
This is a clear testable hypothesis! Remember, those "evolutionists" trust those radiometric dating techniques when done properly, so all you need is to find a set of rocks that have been dated as Cambrian or earlier and then demonstrate that there is pollen in the rock.
But it was done and they didnt accept it.
One group adopts the attitude that the radiometric dating of dolerites and a hornfels within the Roraima Formation as Precambrian is beyond dispute, hence the pollen (and spores) must have entered as secondary contamination.
The second group holds that by no conceivable physical means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside. They are dense impermeable rocks compressed by an overburden of hundreds of feet of the overlying Roraima sandstones.
The undercutting at Cerro Venamo suggests that the cliff has been steadily retreating, hence the face which was sampled must have been deep within the formation until quite recent times. The Roraima sandstones are quartzitic, of low permeability, hence carriage of extraneous pollen through them by percolating water seems highly improbable.
But let me summarize your general argument. You think that Creationist should deny the evidence that the fossil record shows a clear ordering. Despite the 99.99% of fossils that obey this ordering (something easily verified), you believe there exists a significant number of questionable fossils found that don't fit. Because of the handful of questionable fossils, you believe the ordering of all the other fossils can be ignored. You believe that creationists should not bother to explain this ordering. A theory of the "flood" has nothing here to explain?
Do I have this right?
There are many geological, behavioral, and physiological factors expected to affect an organism's time of death during a flood.Notice that the oldest fossils are bottom dwelling, stationary animals such as sponges followed by slow moving bottom dwellers such as molusks, worms and trilobites. Next are swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. Next are animals who live on the margin between land and water, amphibians followed by reptiles. The last fossils to appear in the fossil record are fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds.Although sorting is expected to occur during the Biblical globaldeluge, exceptions to their normal position in the flood strata are also a given. According to the global-flood model, out of place fossils should be somewhat common, forcing regular revisions of the proposed evolutionary history.
Fossil Sorting During The Flood
Jurassic "Beaver" Found; Rewrites History of Mammals
Fossil Reanalysis Pushes Back Origin of Homo Sapiens
Flew Earlier Than Previously Thought, Scientists Say
Earliest Bilateral Fossil Discovered
Salamander Origins Pegged To Asia
Oldest hummingbird fossils found
A Fossil Unearthed in Africa Pushes Back Human Origins
Redrawing HumanityÃ‚Â´s Family Tree
Here is an example of the ordering found in the Dinosaur National Monument with various canyons mentioned on the right cutting through these layers
ItÃ‚Â´s only an abstract construction, using layers from different places.You can notice that they dont show the absolute depths.If you use absolute depths you can easily see that the layers dont obey this order.Many places throughout the world you can find cambrian rocks low feets below.