ESA Return to http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-09.htm. 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 IX

Flaws in picturing phase equilibria experiments as supporting the view of a secondary origin of granites, revealed by failure of those experiments to actually synthesize granites.

We now turn to Andrew's presumed laboratory confirmation of his claim of a secondary origin of granite, as stated in his email's Point 1.

  • "Sedimentary basins ought to be places where granite magmas were generated. . . . At depths of 5-10 km . . . the pressures and temperatures can reach 5 kbar and 735°C respectively. These phase equilibria experiments indicate that under such conditions the fossiliferous sediments would partially melt to form granitic magmas . . . [which] would then rise through fractures to intrude into the overlying fossiliferous sediments. Subsequent erosion has exposed at the Earth's surface the cooled granite bodies intruded into those fossiliferous sediments."

The common man would find it very difficult to comprehend this description; hence he would find it equally difficult to decide if these conclusions are valid. However, I know the language, and it's easy for me to unravel what Andrew is attempting to prove. In essence he has drawn conclusions based on a close mixing of a few facts to make it appear there is a credible basis for the conclusions he attempts to establish. In fact, the phase equilibria experiments being cited have nothing to do with the claim that granites are secondary rocks derived from fossil-containing sedimentary rocks. The common man cannot readily see that. But he can understand the fact that if this claim had merit, many others would long ago have employed these procedures to prove this contention by synthesizing granite in the lab, something which thousands of experiments have failed to accomplish. More on this shortly.

Indeed, what evolutionists have desperately tried to hide is that their multitudinous experiments have in reality failed to confirm the naturalistic origin of granite. But in order to maintain the fiction of evolution and a slowly cooling Earth in spite of this laboratory disproof, evolutionists must at the same time continue such experiments and interpret them in a sufficiently vague way so as to convey the impression that the results somehow do favor, or support, the evolutionary view of Earth history. In other words, by closely assimilating experimental data with interpretations, and by omitting discussion of the critical, underlying assumptions used to transfer data into conclusions, they leave the impression — which is almost universally accepted as fact — that their interpretations follow logically from the experimental results. The truth is just the opposite. In truth the experimental results disprove their interpretations. It's the same old game that began in the Garden of Eden, of merging truth with error so closely that few can distinguish between them. The result is a gigantic hoax that perpetuates the ruse of evolution and its vast deception that granites are secondary rocks derived from the melting of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks.

With all due respect to ICR and Andrew, it seems that Point 1 merges an essentially uniformitarian view of granite's secondary origin so closely with the data as to leave the impression that granite must be secondary, whereas in fact there is no genuine connection at all. Essentially the same thing is done in Point 3 of Andrew's email.

< 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 http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-09.htm on April 24, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates