# The Pollen Problem

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [April 27, 2026, 6:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786 "2026-04-27T18:49:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2026, 10:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/41 "2026-06-23T22:49:22Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> I’ve seen this claim from creationists a lot, but what I never see is an attempt to put it in practice.
> 
> If you were actually try to create a nested hierarchy based on designed objects, do you think it would follow the same pattern of living organisms based on genetic inheritance?

Niles Eldridge looked at the development of the cornet:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225328836\_Paleontology\_and\_Cornets\_Thoughts\_on\_Material\_Cultural\_Evolution](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225328836_Paleontology_and_Cornets_Thoughts_on_Material_Cultural_Evolution)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2026, 10:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/42 "2026-06-23T22:53:04Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> Nested heirarchies can be created from designed things, not just evolved things. That’s not proof of anything.

You can _intentionally_ created a nested hierarchy. That isn’t in dispute.

What _is_ in dispute is that simply designing things for functional reasons inadvertently results in a nested hierarchy as an expected byproduct of the designing process.

You have no model of design from which it logically follows that significant amounts of nesting hierarchical structure will come to exist in the data between genealogically unrelated things.

That means you have to posit intent behind it’s creation. That the designer put that structure into the data on purpose despite there being no _functional_ reason to do so. But since it is not _a priori_ expected on design and merely accounted for after the fact by positing intent behind it’s creation, while common descent naturally predicts it (that is to say, it is a priori expected on common descent), it is strong evidence favoring common descent over separate creation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2026, 11:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/43 "2026-06-23T23:59:31Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> You have ~40 days to get all that water in place, and a massive Heat Problem that comes along with it.

Yes, both creationists and evolutionists have heat problems and light time travel problems. Figuring this stuff out is very hard.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Then another 300+ days to make most of that water go away,

You think the water went away?

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> shuffle the continents around (another Heat Problem),

I don’t necessarily subscribe to the theory of catastrophic plate tectonics. I’m agnostic on the question at the moment, as there are major unsolved questions and problems with those theories. One need not be committed to a particular theory of how the continents arose to believe in a global flood.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> and put most of those carefully ordered geological layers back in order.

It’s not clear what you’re getting at with this. The fact is, we do see geological layers that span worldwide across continents, which is very strong evidence _for_ the flood.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> What sort of Flood scenario scoops up biomes one by one, keeps them suspended separately while other biomes are being scooped up, then lays them out gently on top of the continents so the fossils display a nested hierarchy that did not exist before?

That’s not what I believe. The flood buried the fossils as it was ascending, in the order in which they were encountered. Then as the waters receeded from the rising continents these layers were rapidly eroded.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> And then you have the gall to claim everyone else is _“conditioned through a lifetime of media exposure”_, which is conspiracy theory on a level exceeding the imaginations of _[Wilson and Shea.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy)_

Not a conspiracy theory, just an obvious fact.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> No. Just no. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to have some constraints that keep you inside the same reality where everyone one else lives.

Whether you take me seriously is between you and God, it makes no difference to me.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> If you want people to respect your religious beliefs, then some minimal level of respect for the beliefs of others is required, and that others are at least as capable of independent thought as yourself.

Actually, I’m told that all participants here are _required_ to respect _all_ religious beliefs.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I would set that bar at _“the laws of physics are foundational to all other beliefs”_, starting with _“Let there be light”_. If you cannot deal with that very minimal constraint, then no one else should be expected to give your ideas any consideration at all.

I don’t believe the Flood violated physics. Our limited knowledge of both physics and the actual events that occurred 4500 years ago is not a violation of physics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 7:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/44 "2026-06-24T19:34:35Z")

</div>

> [@nathanlong](#):
>
> Disagreeing with the people I love most - **and with whom I agree on almost all other matters of Christian faith** - is uncomfortable. But I have dug into the details a lot (for a non-scientist), and I can’t unsee the evidence.

Much like you, I cannot unsee all the evidence for biblical history. I cannot un-read the Bible, where it clearly states that God created in 6 literal days only thousands of years ago. I do see lots of evidence for the Bible’s history, but ultimately my decision to believe it rests on my trust in God–that God both knows the truth and is able to accurately and clearly communicate it in his word.

> [@nathanlong](#):
>
> And again, you have not responded to my question, which is the whole thrust of this topic: **why is there this pollen pattern in the worldwide strata**? If that’s a false claim, YECs should be able to present **a large number** of counterexamples. If it’s a true claim, YECs need to explain how the flood could produce it.

The answer is that I don’t know if this claim is true because this is the first I’ve heard of it. And if it does happen to be true, I would agree it would be an interesting question for creation scientists to tackle, but ultimately it boils down to a fairly weak argument from silence. There could be a whole slew of possible reasons why a global flood (a unique one-time event) might result in unexpected effects like this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nathanlong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@nathanlong](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nathanlong)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 7:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/45 "2026-06-24T19:34:37Z")

</div>

> The flood buried the fossils as it was ascending, in the order in which they were encountered. Then as the waters receeded from the rising continents these layers were rapidly eroded.

You are free to believe that, but among other problems, it does nothing to explain the global pattern of sorting of pollen which is the topic of this discussion. You have not yet offered a solution to that.

Could we please try to stick to this topic? Maybe another young earth creationist wants to try to offer a solution?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 7:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/46 "2026-06-24T19:37:37Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> both creationists and evolutionists have heat problems and light time travel problems.

If you are referring to the Cosmic Microwave Background horizon problem, that is not a question of the speed of light, but thermal uniformity which is another matter. The speed of light rules out exchange of radiation as a solution. There remains much of big bang cosmology we do not know.

The distant starlight problem, however, is a creationist exclusive. The problem is that there is no problem. That radio transmissions from voyager now take a day to reach ground control is what is expected. That the explosion of SN1987 took 168,000 years to be seen on earth is in line with physics. We have cataloged millions of galaxies whose light has traveled for billions of years - no problem whatsoever.

There is no distant starlight problem, except as invented in the minds of YEC. The problem does not exist in the real world. It is like the road travel time from NYC to LA problem. At the speed limit, it will take a bit longer than 40 hours - it is that simple.

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> The flood buried the fossils as it was ascending, in the order in which they were encountered.

The act of burying requires not just water, but massive material transport, which is by definition high energy. You cannot have water transport of rock and soil and placid burial of carcasses. If a river floods, cows float away.

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> Have you ever stopped to consider that the flood didn’t happen all at once instantaneously, but had to gradually increase over the land, going from biome to biome, over a period of many days before reaching its zenith?

There are wetland biomes, and mammals and reptiles which lived in wetlands. There are desert biomes, and tropical biomes, with mammals and reptiles to be found together. Why are you suggesting that reptiles and mammals, along with the other creatures as dimetrodons and such, isolate into separate biomes?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/47 "2026-06-24T19:43:48Z")

</div>

> [@AnEvolvedPrimate](#):
>
> > [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
> >
> > Nested heirarchies can be created from designed things, not just evolved things.
> 
> I’ve seen this claim from creationists a lot, but what I never see is an attempt to put it in practice.

How could anyone forget scd’s “trcuk” diagram?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 7:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/48 "2026-06-24T19:44:31Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> The fact is, we do see geological layers that span worldwide across continents

I would be very interested if you could name these layers that span worldwide across continents. I suspect you may be confused by layers that can be _correlated_ across continents. Such correlation is in the vast majority achieved through biostratigraphy and/or radiometric dating. Are you now accepting these tools?

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> The flood buried the fossils as it was ascending, in the order in which they were encountered.

How does that work with pollen, especially with pollen types that only appear higher in the stratigraphic column. Why are these not found in deeper layers as well? Evolutionary answer: because the plants that generate those pollen weren’t around yet during those older times. YEC answer:…?

Also, how does that work with planktonic foraminifera, the ones that float in the ocean? Their biome extends over entire oceans and their fossil remains show exquisite zonation based on tiny differences in size and morphology - evolutionary answer, again: because the types of forams living at any particular time differ from earlier and later times. How does a Flood manage to sort these minute shells so universally?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nathanlong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@nathanlong](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nathanlong)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2026, 10:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/49 "2026-06-24T22:49:51Z")

</div>

It would be especially confusing for rising waters to sort fish → tetrapods → cetaceans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 4:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/50 "2026-06-25T04:06:38Z")

</div>

Lots of things which are one-time, non-repeatable events can produce confusing results for people who were not there to witness them happening. But one thing that is not confusing is the Bible’s clear indication that this is indeed what happened. The flood makes the most sense of the big picture we see all around us. That is not to say there are not conundrums and interesting research questions-many of which will never be answered in this age because the events cannot be repeated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![misterme987](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/misterme987/32/15207_2.png) [@misterme987](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/misterme987)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 4:11am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/51 "2026-06-25T04:11:40Z")

</div>

I probably shouldn’t engage, but doesn’t this kind of give the game away? It’s perfectly fine to say that you don’t need an answer because the flood was miraculous and non-repeatable, but that means that ‘flood geology’ is explicitly not scientific.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 5:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/52 "2026-06-25T17:51:15Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> Lots of things which are one-time, non-repeatable events can produce confusing results for people who were not there to witness them happening.

If you are committed to a global flood, you do you. If some granny says that the devil made the dinosaur fossils, I just shrug and hope she is happy. But what you are doing is proselytizing pseudoscience to explain away clear evidence.

The observed sorting pervasive in geology is what would be expected given separation by time. That is not a condundrum, not confusing, and nobody outside of YEC is confused. Your suggestion that the sorting is due to flooding of separate biomes does not work, because different classes of animals are found together in all types of habitats. That has nothing to do with how often the event happens, or whether there was on the spot reporting.

If the shoe doesn’t fit, maybe try not wearing it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 5:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/53 "2026-06-25T17:52:09Z")

</div>

Just so we are on the same page, do you agree that there is a very strong signal of vertical zonation when it comes to fossil pollen and planktonic microfossils, or are you even disputing that? Can you give us a simple answer to this simple question?

By all reasonable yardsticks virtually _all_ pollen as well as all planktonic foraminifera ought to be vertically mixed up if the rocks in which they are found were formed essentially simultaneous in one short-lived global event, whatever its exact nature. If temporal separation can’t be the reason, the only separation we should see would be regional, reflecting different biomes across the globe. Within each biome all pollen-producing plants and planktonic forams would be living, and dying, essentially at the same time so their remains would be buried together.

The reality is very, very different: yes, not only are there regional variations but within such individual regions there is a very, very clear and persistent vertical zonation as well. This is so clear that entire scientific sub-disciplines have been established (palynology, micropaleontology) that make good use of this fact, not only scientifically but also in hydrocarbon exploration.

This state of affairs goes far beyond an ‘interesting research question’ or a ‘conundrum’. It is a fundamental problem with your basic model of producing these sedimentary rocks at the same time. Your model doesn’t allow for the most obvious and simplest variable to explain this: change over time. You haven’t even started to suggest possible, let alone plausible alternative explanations for the very strong signal of this vertical zonation. Instead, all you have is an a-priori belief that the Bible says it all happened within the span of one year, and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If that allows you to obliterate the signal into non-existence, fine for you, but don’t go round pretending that there is anything scientific about such a position.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 5:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/54 "2026-06-25T17:53:31Z")

</div>

I specifically said I didn’t believe the Flood violated physics. There’s no need to suggest that the Flood happened due to a miracle–the Bible doesn’t specify the mechanistic cause that started the Flood. It could have been miraculous, but without the Bible specifying that I’m not going to jump to that conclusion.

When you say it’s non-repeatable and therefore “not scientific”, I am puzzled. Are you not aware that non-repeatable events happen every day? We use science (i.e. forensic science) to investigate past events that cannot be repeated. This brings us again to[the important distinction between historical and operational science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAmT9H8oLl0).

Saying I “don’t need an answer” isn’t really an honest takeaway, either. Whether I would like to know is irrelevant. There are simply some things that historical science cannot answer. Repeatability is the main thing that enables us to answer questions about the natural world using operational science (the scientific method). When you’re dealing with an event which wasn’t witnessed and cannot be repeated, the amount of information we’ll be able to reliably determine goes way down.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 5:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/55 "2026-06-25T17:53:50Z")

</div>

He might as well condense every one of his posts to “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” All the attempts at scientific explanation are just window dressing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncensoredPilgrims](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/uncensoredpilgrims/32/24034_2.png) [@UncensoredPilgrims](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/UncensoredPilgrims)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 9:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/56 "2026-06-25T21:42:06Z")

</div>

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> By all reasonable yardsticks virtually _all_ pollen as well as all planktonic foraminifera ought to be vertically mixed up if the rocks in which they are found were formed essentially simultaneous in one short-lived global event,

You don’t know they “ought to be mixed up”. That’s just brash. The only way you could actually know with any degree of certainty what Noah’s flood “should” look like, down to the detail of where we should expect to find the pollen, is if you could be there yourself to document and witness the event.

It wasn’t a simultaneous event as I said, it was an event that took 150 days to reach its zenith. Why should I engage in dialogue with someone who isn’t interested in getting these basic facts right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 10:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/57 "2026-06-25T22:01:29Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> You don’t know they “ought to be mixed up”.

It is implied in your own statement for what you think may have happened. Turbulent **F** loodwaters are need to pick up the sediment need to bury all those fossils. You cannot have turbulence without mixing. At the same time you need the waters to be calm so the sediment settles out. At the same time you need water that somehow deposits sediments that look like modern aeolian sand dunes. At the same time living creatures are leaving tracks in those sand dunes. The list goes on.

From this side of the fence. Flood Geology looks like a series of ad hoc claims with no relation to any other, and often contradicting other claims. It can never make sense as a whole. _That’s not your fault,_ but it is the problem you are facing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 10:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/58 "2026-06-25T22:43:54Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> It wasn’t a simultaneous event as I said, it was an event that took 150 days to reach its zenith. Why should I engage in dialogue with someone who isn’t interested in getting these basic facts right?

@faded_Glory wrote “essentially simultaneous”, not simultaneous, and I think you are mischaracterizing what he wrote. From a perspective of mainstream geology 150 days might as well be simultaneous, and it is not unreasonable to ask how it is all necessary events occurred in such a short span of time.

We also have…

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> Instead, all you have is an a-priori belief that the Bible says it all happened within the span of one year, and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If that allows you to obliterate the signal into non-existence, fine for you, but don’t go round pretending that there is anything scientific about such a position.

Which sums up the point very well. There is nothing scientific about your claims, and it also calls into question an interpretation of the Bible that, by testing against science and the laws of physics, _cannot be literally true._ I do no think is serves anyone, and certainly not those who maintain a faith in a Deity, to mock that faith with falsehoods. If you were arguing for a Flat Earth rather than Noah’s Flood, it would not be any different.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2026, 10:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/59 "2026-06-25T22:48:32Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> Repeatability is the main thing that enables us to answer questions about the natural world using operational science (the scientific method).

Pure creationist propaganda. You are just as antagonistic to observational science as its historical applications. Rates for radioactive decay can be measured repeatedly and cross matches with other measuring techniques, but out of thin air YEC proposes acceleration which has never been observed and violates theory. YEC has no use for measured rates of tectonic movement, fabricating rates that have zero operational support. YEC ignores the laboratory measurement of gypsum crystal growth by orders of magnitude. YEC couldn’t care less about dynamic galactic jets measurably streaming gas into space over hundreds of thousands of light years, or literal observatories imaging infall of material into forming stars.

Again and again, creationists habitually reject observation in favor of ad hoc stories, concocting ideas that do not posses a whiff of observation. They decry uniformarianism for allowing that the present is key to the past, while ignoring the understanding of the present is by definition operational science. The reason is clear, creationists reject operational science because operational science is devastating to creationism. They are mutually exclusive, and this is made explicit in the AiG statement of faith which refers to science in general:

> No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2026, 4:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786/60 "2026-06-26T16:25:31Z")

</div>

> [@UncensoredPilgrims](#):
>
> > [@faded\_Glory](#):
> >
> > By all reasonable yardsticks virtually _all_ pollen as well as all planktonic foraminifera ought to be vertically mixed up if the rocks in which they are found were formed essentially simultaneous in one short-lived global event,
> 
> You don’t know they “ought to be mixed up”. That’s just brash.

Yes @faded_Glory, you don’t know that this wasn’t an _extra special_ flood, where each species of pollen and plankton went down its own special pipe, into its own special holding tank, so that it could be sprayed out onto the ocean floor (after it had settled down from all the turbulence) in its own special layer.

That this, or any other artifice required to create all these layers in such a short time, stretches the meaning of the word “flood” well past breaking point, is hardly a flaw in YEC ‘science’.

If you know that _it had to have happened_ this way, the mental gymnastics required to achieve this outcome is _purely recreational_.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-pollen-problem/17786.md?page=4)