ESA Return to http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-10.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 X

Fallacies in the arguments that skarns support a secondary origin of granite.

To be specific, Point 3 claims to find field evidence for the secondary origin of granite from studies of skarns.

  • "Local boundaries argue for an igneous origin of granites. In the field, and . . . within mines . . . , the effects on the host rocks of the intrusion of hot granitic magmas can be observed, including veining, stoping and contact metamorphism. The most spectacular examples of the latter are skarns, where granitic magmas have metamorphosed limestones to produce new minerals under high temperature and pressure conditions which have been verified by phase equilibria experiments."

Since I understand the language spoken here, it's easy for me to spot the fallacies. However, those untrained in geology could well read the above and not perceive this because the issues are confused by the EG approach combined with faulty logic. For example, the first sentence attempts to make it plausible that certain local boundaries argue for an igneous origin of granites. This introduction implies two things, first, that there exists valid data or observations, and, second, that these can be interpreted so as to constitute a logical progression in support of the claim being made. In fact, this description does not support these implications.

Everyone knows rocks can be melted when in contact with deep heat sources. There is no mystery here. They know it because they see photos of volcanic eruptions. And lab studies show that heat and pressure applied to limestone do produce the same kind of mineralogical changes seen in sites intruded by rock melts (or magmas). But this is where it all ends. None of this, singly or collectively, supports the claim that magma from any melted rock type cools to form granite. There is absolutely no connection between the two. And yet this is precisely what is implicitly being attempted to be conveyed. In essence, here the EG approach and flawed logic are used to construct what is a non sequitur to convey the desired conclusion.

Along the same lines, on page 440 of the RATE book, Andrew cites certain geological reports that are pictured as challenging the primordial origin of granite because of documentation obtained by field research. In reality documentation refers to items or information that can be proven or substantiated with a high level of confidence. Classifying the field research of certain authors as documentation conveys the impression that their conclusions were obtained using well-established, verifiable, reproducible, scientific principles. In fact, examination of the reports shows that what exists are only interpretations based on the usual, badly-flawed, evolutionary uniformitarian assumptions which are, of course, just the opposite of documentation. In reality the reports cited there contain the same kind of confusion between fact and geological speculation that appears in any number of highly adversarial evolutionist web sites that unsuccessfully attempt to cast in doubt my publications on the primordial origin of granites and their enclosed polonium halos.

Actually, it's not a complete surprise that Andrew has made reference to field studies to support plausibility arguments for granites originating from fossiliferous sedimentary rocks. I am not surprised because this is what conventional PhD geology training is all about — that is, going out and drawing conclusions about the time and order of emplacement by using certain interpretive assumptions. Yes, for the past two hundred years geologists have been using what they claim are the only geologically-correct assumptions to interpret Earth history. On that basis they have published millions of pages of geological descriptions that support the evolutionary view of Earth history. Thus they have succeeded in perpetuating belief in one of the cleverest deceptions in human history, specifically that the Earth and all it contains are the product of either blind, mindless evolutionary forces, or of theistically-aided evolution, over billions of imaginary years. Unfortunately, the same flawed uniformitarian assumptions that characterize evolutionary geology and its variant — theistically-aided evolution — continue to haunt the halls of modern creationism.

With all due respect to my friend Andrew, his use of skarns corresponds closely to that I encountered over ten years ago when I was responding to claims of an evolutionist who likewise claimed that skarns proved granite was of secondary origin. His views were almost exactly the same as those noted above. The similarity is very great. I visited and studied all the sites that this particular evolutionist referred to in support of his claims and, in years past, discussed some of my findings with Andrew. But I didn't reveal all that I discovered at those sites, and from my subsequent experimental analyses of the specimens I collected. Both studies unequivocally deny the assertion that skarns corroborate a Flood origin of granites.

< 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-2003-1-10.htm on July 31, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates