[Liberal Classic]

Precambrian Pollen

This latter example is instructive because it shows that even when "creation science" is refuted there is an urge to cling to "evidence" favorable to the cause (Austin 1994:137). Burdick (1966) claimed to have isolated pollens of pine, juniper and Mormon tea in samples of the Proterozoic Hakatai Shales in the Grand Canyon, rocks much older than the first appearance of vascular plants in the geologic record. When later, more comprehensive and careful studies failed to reproduce these results, it was concluded that Burdick's work was simply a case of contamination by modern pollens (Chadwick 1981). MTC still leaves the door open by concluding, "The possibility of pollen in Precambrian rocks, no doubt, will remain controversial among creationists."

Source: National Center for Science Education

[2nsdammit]

Well, now you've done it. They're going to scream "creationist evidence is being repressed!" (Never mind that "creation scientists" are part of said repression...)

;-)

[Diamond]

The National Center for Science Education has not done its homework. This is NOT pollen from the Burdick collection or the Chadwick studies.

Read this. http://www.rae.org/pollen.html

Cordially,