The Roraima Pollen Evolutionary Paradox

---REBUTTAL:Let's get the logic of my opponent's argument. A1: The modern evolutionary synthesis is correct. A2: The oldest pollen on Earth has been dated using radiometry to be 135 Ma. A3: The radiometric dating model is correct. P1: If A2 and A3 are correct, then pollen did not exist on Earth before 135 Ma. P2: If A2, A3, and P1 are correct, then pollen should not be found in a location older than 135 Ma. P3: From testing, the Roraima Foundation has been dated using radiometry to be 1,700-1,800 Ma. P4: From sampling, the Roraima Foundation contains pollen in its rocks. P5: P2 and P4 form a contradiction; thus, A2 or A3 is false. P6: If A3 is false, then A1 is false. C: From P1-6, A1 is false. Note: My opponent's first source actually puts plants at 135 Ma of age, not 120. Small discrepancy, anyways. As you can probably tell, there are quite a few problems with my opponent's logic. P1:P1 doesn't follow from A2. While it is true that we do not currently know of any pollen-producing (angiosperm) plants before 135 Ma, this our current evolutionary history of plants is 100% correct, as angiosperms may have existed earlier that we do not know about. P2:P2 only follows if objections to both P1 and P2 are defeated. Notably, it is possible for new objects to contaminate old objects. Pollen from modern plants may have entered into the sample. My opponent quotes that, “Utmost care was taken to avoid any possibility of superficial contamination[. ]”However, the larger passage reads:"[A] reconnaissance expedition of qualified geologists was organized to verify the facts[. ] . .. During April, 1964, . .. the locality was visited[. ] . .. They confirmed the salient facts as recorded by Dunsterville. . .. . New samples of unweathered rock were collected from the face of the undercut. . .. . Utmost care was taken to avoid any possibility of superficial 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[. ]"The contamination that they were preventing against was contamination resulting from transport damage and interaction with modern outside elements, NOT that of potential contamination in the past. In fact, the report itself mentions a position that lends support to my view that contamination is the likely cause:"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 improbability that pollen could withstand the baking process, which converted shale to hornfels, is adduced as further evidence that the pollen must be allochthonous [(moved from another location)]. The absence of macroscopic plant remains in the Roraima Formation is also noted, despite its assumed continental (? fluviatile) origin. It is admitted that entry of the pollen into its present site defies simple explanation, though some form of washing in by meteoric waters in the geological past via joints in the overlying sandstone seems the most probable cause. "P3:This point is sound, if A3 and the research is sound. P4:My opponent must prove that this "pollen" must actually be pollen. False positives happen. P5:This statement is sound if all other objections are defeated. P6:Fundamentally, this statement does not have to follow from P6. As pointed out, it is possible that A2 is false, and that angiosperms evolved earlier. Furthermore, radiometric dating is NOT vital to evolutionary theory, as I will point out later. If, however, it is proven that A1 relies on both A3, and if all other objections raised are defeated, and it is proven that A2 MUST be correct, then P6 follows. C:This does not logically follow, for the reasons pointed out in P5. ---Pro says: "My opponent asked me to describe the paradox “in detail”, suggesting that I should explain the technical aspects of the problem. I decline, as I don't feel it's necessary, at least not until Con raises objections of a technical nature. "I have raised some reasonably technical responses, and I encourage a technical rebuttal. ---Pro says: "Con also asked me to provide “modern sources” about the paradox. I ask Con to define what he means by “modern” in this context. My first source is dated 1966. If Con doesn't think it's recent enough, he will have to explain why. "In 1966, modern radiometric dating was in its infancy. While the source provided from 1996 suffices, I think it's important to register that science changes, and we must with it. ---Pro says: "Con requested that I posit an alternative theory to Evolution that can explain the existence of pollen in Precambrian rock without producing a paradox. I will decline, since it's not necessary to prove my resolution. "It's one thing to attack a scientific theory as incorrect. However, if you don't have a better theory, then we still accept evolution. It's kind of like driving a car: Even rattling to your job in a battered, decrepit piece of junk is better than not being able to get to work. Furthermore, this "paradox" (a) doesn't exist and (b) doesn't challenge evolution but rather the history of plant evolution OR radiometric dating, neither of which is essential for the theory of evolution. ---CONTENTION ONE:Pro says: "My opponent cannot defeat my case by arguing that the radiometric dating of Roraima rock is incorrect. For if that were the case, Evolutionary Theory would still be undermined since it relies on the same radiometric dating to establish that the earth is 'old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. ' "First off, I CAN argue that the dating is incorrect. It is entirely possible that these samples underwent factors that would change their dating significantly and give false readings, which would be rejected. However, radiometric dating is NOT necessary to establish the age of the universe. While it is very useful in determining the age of the Earth, we have plenty of other methods of dating that place a minimum age of the Earth in the millions of years and the universe in the billions, while simultaneously blowing holes in the theory of Biblical Creationism that my opponent would conceivably support if they are opposed to evolution:5,063 years - Currently unnamed tree [01]. Would have had to been alive since before the flood began.11,750 years - King Clone creosote bush ring [02]. Dated both through known creosote growth rates and through carbon 14 dating.160,000 years - Ice cores [03]. Using multiple dating methods, this ice sheet is too old both for the existence of the Earth and for a global flood. The only way to account for this level of ice core development within 6,000 years would be to have 27 layers of ice fall each year, every year, on the polar ice caps, which has not been documented ever and would need a mechanism.8,550,000 years - Magnetic reversals [04]. Earch changes polarity once about every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and very very very rarely less requently than that. About 171 reversals are documented. 8.55 million is the MINIMUM.13,000,000,000 years - SDSS 1306+0356 [05][06]. This quasar is 13 billion light-years away from earth; consequently, if the speed of light has not changed, then the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old. As such, it is entirely feasible to believe in an old Earth and universe even if evolution, plant history, and radiometric dating are flawed. ---REFERENCES:[01] . http://www.rmtrr.org...[02] . http://www.nps.gov...[03] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[04] Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36. ISBN 0393301540. [05] . http://chandra.harvard.edu...[06] . http://www.spaceref.com...