More fallacies in the claims of a secondary origin of granite.
To begin this section it is most helpful to quote from Andrew's 11/17/03 email:
Actually, we need to understand that it is not observational evidences per se — or even impeccable observational evidences — that are at issue here. Rather it is the conclusions that are reached from the examination of whatever geological features may be in question. And of course the conclusions are not separate entities; they depend on the interpretive assumptions used. Thus whatever conclusions are obtained from the examination of any geological feature, are actually only as good as the lens itself — meaning, of course, the set of interpretive assumptions that were adopted.
The above makes it appear that observational evidences are equivalent to geological facts. The truth is that what is being claimed to be impeccable evidences do not in fact even exist, apart from certain underlying assumptions. All that really exists are the geological features, which in this case are being interpreted as impeccable observational evidences. Logically speaking, the above argument is fatally flawed because a non sequitur has been introduced into the argument. What is being claimed as being impeccable evidences are in reality only interpretations based on certain uniformitarian assumptions. More specifically, when it is claimed that ". . . many impeccable observational evidences, that are not tainted with uniformitarianism, but which unequivocally show that many granites were formed from magmas derived by the melting of sediments at temperatures and pressures that destroyed contained fossils," this is in reality an invalid claim. Andrew obviously was not present during the occurrence of the events he describes. Yet he makes it appear that his interpretation is the same as having been there and actually seen it happen.
This of course is how geologists have worked for about the last two centuries. I refer to the fact that in reality the only truth about a geological site is its visual appearance and what it actually contains in the here and now. However, geologists are trained to merge their descriptions of a site with their interpretations of its history using plausibility arguments based on their evolutionary-oriented assumptions. The overall impression conveyed by this approach is that geological interpretations are viewed as having the same credibility as does the existence of the site itself. This process, multiplied innumerable times all over the Earth for the past two centuries, easily explains why the evolutionary scenario of Earth history has gained such wide credibility. Indeed, the mentality behind this deception is so pervasive that nearly the whole world has come to disregard the seven-day creation in Genesis and to accept the evolutionary fabrication about a 4.5-billion-year Earth history.
Indeed, the fact that conventional geologists and physicists have long gotten away with promoting an ancient Earth history by really nothing more than clever manipulation of geological and radiometric terminologies, which the common man doesn't understand (being almost invariably intimidated from asking their meanings for fear of being ridiculed by these experts), leads me to be wary that Andrew and ICR may unwittingly have adopted the same mindset, and are now in the process of implicitly employing what I refer to as the Eminent Geologist (EG) approach. It could just as well be Eminent Biologist, Eminent Paleontologist, Eminent Physicist, Eminent Astrophysicist, Eminent Cosmologist, or any other Eminent Scientist (ES). As far as the world's news and TV media are concerned, they are all in the ES category, and information that an ES releases concerning any facet of the presumed evolutionary history of the cosmos, the Earth, and life thereon, gets swallowed by the media and then regurgitated to the world, without any mention of the hidden, fallacious underlying assumptions on which their releases are based.
It's undoubtedly one of the most powerful tools ever devised to subvert the great biblical truths of creation to what is in reality a vast deception. Indeed, the great success that conventional geologists have enjoyed using the EG method in convincing the world of geological evolution is nothing short of amazing. Because of its pervasiveness I must keep in mind the possibility that this method — namely, that whatever claims that an eminent geologist makes are quite often widely accepted as factual — may occupy a significant role in supporting ICR's claim of finding a geological feature, or occurrence, not tainted with uniformitarianism, but which unequivocally supports their claim of granites' secondary origin from fossiliferous Flood rocks. Andrew's email cites three evidences that are presumed not to be so tainted.
Earth Science Associates