ESA Return to ESA

Open Letter to ICR
< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

Part I:

Flaws in the claim OF HAVING UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE THAT granites originate from fossiliferous Flood rocks.

In Impact #353 Andrew claims to find unequivocal evidence that granites originate from the melting and cooling of fossiliferous Flood rocks. Unequivocal evidence means proof, and the only proof that could possibly support this claim would be verification of sites where fossils now exist in granites. On 11/03/02 I sent Andrew an email requesting that he identify the precise locations of these sites. On 11/17/02 he emailed a reply containing the following excerpt:

  • "Bob, you know as well as we do that granites do not contain fossils."

Actually, my 11/03/02 email to Andrew related that over the past few decades I have checked out every place in North America where evolutionists claimed that fossils exist in granites, and there were none to be found. This is partly summarized in my book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, on pages 334-338, wherein I refer to H J. Hoffman's report, Precambrian Fossils, Pseudofossils, and Problematica in Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 189, 30-34 (1971). There I contrast reports of fossils in granites, with fossils found lying on top of granites; the former are spurious, while the latter are expected to occur when the Flood waters receded.

Turning attention now to what Andrew claims to believe about fossils in granites, we find that on page 446 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, ICR's widely known RATE book, he actually strongly affirms the existence of fossils in granites:

  • "Even more convincing is the granite found in the central Urals which contained a number of fossil species of brachiopods [Malakhova and Ovchinnikov, 1970]."

The contradiction here is clearly seen. On the one hand, his email claims that his not believing that fossils exist in granites as the reason why he should not be required to give locations that would support his claim of granites being derived from fossiliferous Flood rocks. On the other hand, the above records his published, authoritative claim that certain granites do contain fossils. Thus I did have a valid basis for requesting Andrew to provide locations where fossils exist in granites. His failure to provide those locations constitutes one outstanding proof that his and ICR's claim is spurious.

Moreover, contrary to the attempts by certain evolutionists and creationists to use the Malakhova and Ovchinnikov report to cast my published results in question, actually there is no good reason for anyone to ever have believed it. Over ten years ago, on page 336 of the 1992 edition of my book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, I published details of its totally fictitious nature. Obviously, Andrew and ICR could have saved themselves the embarrassment of this citation appearing in the RATE book if they had only consulted my book. It will be interesting to see if it is deleted from the RATE book's next edition. But ICR is not the only organization inclined to act in this fashion. Interestingly, there is another creation-science-related entity who continues to cite it in their ongoing attempts to disprove the primordial origin of granites while promoting their secondary naturalistic origin over evolutionary time. Even after many years it has yet to admit this citation is without any factual basis.

< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

The above page was found at on November 15, 2018.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates