This is interesting Pine tree pollen spores in Grand Canyon rocks. But I know even if it is true it can't be true, because the monkey story must prevail.
http://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/08/0 ... nd-canyon/

It's false because it's been investigated and found to be contamination.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.html
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bu ... len_kh.htm

Of course, you didn't notice that your source didn't present any, you know, evidence or references thereto.

Those are merely labels. They give zero information as to whether evolution is compatible or incompatible with Christianity (or compatible / incompatible with other religions/beliefs).



But you and KCFS avoided making that point (or any other points) on the witness stand at the 2005 Kansas Science Standards hearings, where that point might have been closely and rationally examined more fully by a good cross-examination attoney.

I'm not saying that the only people who supported evolution were atheists; I'm saying that you and KCFS made sure that you didn't have to publicly deal with any possible connections between evolution and atheism....connections which, again, might have created extra doubts and questions in Christian voters' minds.

After all, the professional scientist, chemist Dr. John Millam, demonstrated a linkage (via Kant) between methodological naturalism and atheism at those 2005 Science Standards hearings, so indeed it would have been VERY interesting to see how well you could defend your point, on the witness stand, beyond a simple/simplistic "Well So-and-So's a Christian and he says he supports evolution."



Ah, but that's just your opinion that they were "not relevant." Maybe si maybe no. But since you and Miller were careful NOT to mention those personal beliefs, your audiences were never given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not said beliefs were relevant to evolution and in what manner. Hmm.



I know you still maintain it....but your argument is no longer sustainable. Argumentum ad Populum (which is a logical fallacy, as Wikipedia points out), is the only argument evolutionists can now offer at all.

At this point, there's an entire Wall-Of-China of rational and scriptural reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christainity. It's a done deal.

FL

What makes evolution and evolutionist suspect is all the effort spent creating scenarios to show the possibility of a wrong conclusion by creationist, wile their rebuttal usually rest on some unproven assumption.

If finding the correct answer was the desired destination of science wouldn't it be easy to just retest the rocks to determine if pollen was present.

Didn't read the links, did you? Of course not. At the bottom of the second link we see "Chadwick, A. V., 1981. Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon - a re-examination. Origins 8(1): 7-12. http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm". Origins is a creationist magazine. Following that link we see that the rocks were re-tested. Demonstrating that the original result was contamination.

Oh, there are still plenty of questions (mainly of detail) about the age and formation of the Grand Canyon, but only creationists think it was caused by Noah’s flood, all evidence to the contrary be damned. But I suppose you’re right---no matter how broad the consensus, every conclusion of science gets questioned by someone somewhere sometime if you wait long enough or look in the right places. Hell, even the Flat Earth Society is up and running again and looking for new members.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

And the Hollow Earth Society: http://www.ourhollowearth.com/

JonF wrote Oh, you're so funny when you shoot yourself in both feet while they're in your mouth. Didn't read the links, did you? Of course not. At the bottom of the second link we see "Chadwick, A. V., 1981. Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon - a re-examination. Origins 8(1): 7-12. http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm". Origins is a creationist magazine. Following that link we see that the rocks were re-tested. Demonstrating that the original result was contamination.

Still no evidence from you.

The most interesting and controversial creationist Precambrian plant fossil study was conducted by Clifford Burdick (Burdick, 1966, 1972, 1974a). He examined the Hakatai Shale strata within the Grand Canyon and reported finding a wide variety of pollen and spores. Following this study, other scientists confirmed Burdick’s work (Chadwick, DeBord, and Fisk, 1973). In a later effort to buttress his position, Burdick documented other areas across the planet where Precambrian and Cambrian pollen were reported (Burdick 1974b, 1975, 1982). A subsequent investigation of the Hakatai Shale (Chadwick, 1982), however, found no evidence of any plant fossils, and proposed that contamination was the cause of the earlier findings of pollen and spores. This raised doubts about Burdick’s work.

The controversy surrounding Burdick’s work centered around his finding both modern and ancient fossilized forms of plant spores and pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Evolutionists would not have had any problems with Burdick’s work if only ancient fossilized forms were found. Finding modern forms of spores and pollens created a serious age issue with this shale layer. In the creationist community Burdick’s work creates controversy for those who define the Flood/pre-Flood boundary as the contact between the Precambrian and Cambrian. They should not find plant fossils in rocks which they define as having formed early in the Creation Week (before plants were created). For both these groups Burdick’s findings created different problems for different reasons.

To resolve this lingering controversy over the presence or absence of pollen grains and spores within the Hakatai Shale, members of the Creation Research Society (CRS) collected and analyzed their own samples in an effort to confirm or refute Burdick’s earlier findings (Howe, 1986; Howe, Williams, Matzko, and Lammerts, 1986, 1988; Lammerts and Howe, 1987). Their results supported Burdick’s findings of modern spores and pollen within the Hakatai Shale. Of course this confirmation remains counter to the evolutionary model (Chaloner, 1967; Cloud, 1968), and is very controversial. The uniformitarian model does not predict or allow for the presence of modern pollen and spores within the Hakatai Shale as it is too old to contain these “advanced” types of plant fossils. The incorrect sequence contradicts the global uniformitarian column, which may explain why certain creationists remain skeptical of the conclusions of this latest confirmatory study. For whatever reason, some creationists have also rejected the possibility of modern or ancient pollen, spore, or any other plant material within the Hakatai Shale (Austin, 1994, pp. 63, 137; Austin and Wise, 1994, pp. 38–39).

Recently, questions were raised regarding the validity and methodology of the CRS confirmation study from an Internet post forwarded to the Quarterly Editor. Answers to the post’s issues were provided explaining why earlier studies failed to identify the modern and/or ancient plant pollen and spores within the Hakatai Shale (Williams, 1997). The results of this latest study supports the belief that pollen and spores occur within the Hakatai Shale and that they were deposited contemporaneously with the strata.

Before undertaking the laboratory work, we discussed the sample dissolution procedures with several palynologists and analytical chemists. They warned that if the fossil pollen was silicified within the shale matrix, excessive time in HF solutions would destroy the grains. Many of the samples were completely dissolved in the HCL solution rendering the HF dissolution step unnecessary. The HF dissolution was only to be employed if the rock had not been completely dissolved in the HCL solution.

We repeat, lengthy exposures to HF can destroy fossil pollen incorporated in the shale matrix without affecting any possible contaminating modern pollen. We demonstrated that HF exposure would not destroy modern (contaminating) pollen. Fresh oak and pine pollen were placed in 48% HF solutions for periods of 64-70 hours. The pollen grains were still present after these exposures (Ref. 8, Figures 43-46).

I'm still waiting on your answer to this question.

Are you assuming that Christian judges would not be impartial? And that atheist judges would?

Please clariify your question by referencing the post you originally asked it in. I want to check the context.

Are you assuming that Christian judges would not be impartial? And that atheist judges would?

Please clariify your question by referencing the post you originally asked it in. I want to check the context.

Please reference the post you are refering to.

Many people have known that was your position for a long time, Jack. What is interesting is that you never stated that back during the "evolution wars", so far as anyone I know can tell.

Of course, I understand that if this had been commonly known, it would probably meant that KCFS would not have been as effective as it was.

This is relevant still, because your beliefs in this area affect how you see the evidence in the first place, whether it has to do with the origin of the universe or life, the mathematical order apparently inherent in the operations of the material universe, the fine tuning of the same, historical references, and many other subjects.

KCFS's political war against the Revised Standards was supposedly based on a goal of "defending" science and/or science education. That PR image could have been undermined significantly, if the specific worldviews of its more vocal members--including Jack's worldview, it seems pretty clear--had come under close public scrutiny, e.g. from the media or in a venue like the 2005 Science Standards Hearings.

Definitely could have raised a few questions in public, and certain raised questions in public can cause church-going voters to accidentally not vote your way.

FL