pollen found in the Roraima formation?

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

pollen found in the Roraima formation?

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:14 pm

Right folks, this claim has been put to me several times by poohboy on Prremier's forum who claims it equates to finding a rabbit in the Cambrian i.e. it disproves millions of years and evolution:

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/foru ... _com_forum

Tell me, what do you know of pollen found in the Roraima formation?


I assume he's repeating the claim from here:

http://creation.com/pollen-paradox

which appears to be quoting/quotemining this (which he's referred me to):

http://rpasmd.org/rms/Pollen_Roraima.htm

Please, could someone who's got a better knowledge of the geology of this region and what Silvestru and Weiland's claims are not answer the wee shite ? I've googled this and can't find anything at all on the creationist claims on this study.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: pollen found in the Roraima formation?

Postby Michael » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:00 pm

The YEC trick is to select an odd paper on a remote area and cite that.

Further the paper is 1966 and a lot of radiometric techniques and understanding were not in place e.g. over variable dates in the same rock. I can say that as I was listening to colleagues of Norman Snelling (ref 7) discussing the problem in 1967/8 and I cannot remember whether Norman was with them.

Further there seems nothing more recent on it so I can make no comment

Anyway if it is from CMI it can't be true

PS dont forget the alleged pollen in the Precambrian at the bottom of the Grand Canyon
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: pollen found in the Roraima formation?

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:58 pm

Not my field, but Google produced this:
Correa Neto
4th October 2004, 10:21 AM
Check http://www.sbgeo.org.br/rgb/vol26_down/2604/2604217.pdf

Roraima Fm. age is between 1.7 to 1.4 Ga (billion years) - Thats Middle Proterozoic.

Its in Portuguese, but the abstract is in English. The article is a bit old (1996) but still quite younger than the references dating back from the 60s presented about the supposed mystery.

Same story- someone with poorly-developed understanding of how science works finds an old paper that may fit with its views. And makes no further checking or tracking, since this could ruin its cause.

Bottomline- its either contamination of the samples (note they were collected on an expedition looking for orchids) or simply it was a mistaken identification, and there were no pollens at all. Such an important finding would no be forgotten.

Sure, we evil-devil-worshippers-geoscientists-members-from-the-illuminati have a tendency to keep the truth away from the populace...
The link to the pdf is dead, but its absence is more than made up for by the next comment:
Soapy Sam
4th October 2004, 05:13 PM
Seems to me that if this dude doesn't believe in the precambrian anyway then he really has no problem.
Priceless. :D
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-28546.html
That the story, however dead, won't lie down is shown by its recent surfacing along with another story: A Tale of Two Pollens
http://crev.info/content/110629-tale_of_two_pollens which concludes with this telling jibe about the Antarctic part of the story:
“The muddy treasure trove was locked away beneath almost 100 feet of dense sedimentary rock,” the article said. Putting aside the evolution-incestuous dating of the core samples, can’t you hear Silvestru and Wieland smirking, “sounds like a global flood.”

Edit: or should that be "unwitting jibe", in view of the source? I don't think I'd like to describe any of my friends as "smirking". Maybe it's different in the USofA?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: pollen found in the Roraima formation?

Postby Dagsannr » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:31 pm

For every single discrepancy pulled out of poor quote mining and selective reporting by the cDesign proponentists I can show them 100 good, proven and robust examples that contradict their claim.

Time and time again, the creationists seem to think that a single example disproves a strong, well tested theory, all the while insisting that the vast number of evidences put against their own pet idea don't count.

A mystery in science prompts more testing, adjustment of theories (if necessary) and an acknowedgement of new findings.
A mystery in creation prompts an announcement that god did it and they leave it there or, alternatively, ignore it and move on.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: pollen found in the Roraima formation?

Postby jon_12091 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:50 am

I found this web page
http://www.pdvsa.com/lexico/1edic/r45ii.htm
Which seems to suggest that the Roraima may be Upper Mesozoic - it is also the name of a Group / Supergroup - I'm guessing there been some tweaking of the stratigraphy since the 60's - personally I wouldn't attempt to explain the finer points of stratagraphic nomencluture to Ploughboy. Reading between the lines suggests that the sequence is thick (>2000m), widespread on a continental scale, of complex stratigraphy, was deposited over a very long period of time and has erosion features infilled by more recent sediments.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron