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 >


Andrew's and ICR's proposal for a secondary origin of granite and enclosed polonium halos: Will both parties now confirm that it must pass the crucial test of experimental verification? Or are you both seeking a pass on this crucial question?

The preceding section has shown that evolutionary geologists have thus far maintained the fiction of a secondary origin of granite by evading the application of experimental testing to their hypothesis, even though experimental testing is the raison d'etra of all modern physical theories. In other words, evolutionary geology has thus far gained credence only because the scientific community has until now unwittingly granted modern geology a pass on this crucial issue of testing its foundational assumptions. The question before us is whether you and ICR are now wanting to obtain an identical pass from the creation science community. It is a most relevant question because the previous discussion applies to your position. The reason we need an answer is that by denying the primordial origin of granites and their enclosed polonium halos, you have made it unambiguously certain that you are claiming a secondary origin of both. This puts your framework of explaining them squarely within the framework of natural physical laws.

This is exactly the same physical-law-testing constraint that evolutionists have successfully evaded in propagating their views of Earth's history. So, again, the question arises as to whether you intend to agree that your proposal for the secondary origin of granites and their enclosed polonium halos must pass the crucial experimental test as to its validity. At present it does not appear to be so. Why? Because on page 446 of the RATE book you, Andrew, present a number of plausibility arguments designed to cast this experimental test in doubt. Actually the arguments you cite are flawed.

For example, you first cite two evolutionists and your long-time friend to support your thesis of secondary granite formation. Such citing in fact shows how scientifically deficient your case really is, for none of the reports you cite contains any tangible, verifiable experimental evidence to actually support the laboratory synthesis of granite as it is found naturally, which is in fact the only true test of what granite actually is. Instead they repeat the standard evolutionary line, which is that synthesis of certain isolated minerals appears to suggest that synthesis of granite itself may someday be possible. You pick up on that theme, saying, ". . . it could only be a matter of time before granite is simulated in the laboratory."

With all due respect to you and ICR, that's the same old subtle appeal to defer judgment interminably that Brent Dalrymple used at the Arkansas trial to help facilitate the ACLU's escape from certain defeat for its advocacy of Earth's evolutionary origin and ancient age. Nonetheless, Judge Overton bought into this trickery and deception without any hesitation. And evolutionists have repeatedly used this ploy ever since in their continued attempts to avert the day of final reckoning, a day wherein the world will finally understand that evolutionary geologists' hypothesis of an anciently evolving Earth was long ago disproven by experimental testing.

Later, again on page 446 of the RATE book, you further evidence your aversion to submitting your hypothesis to experimental testing by citing another individual who, in purely philosophical terms, denigrates the idea of such testing having any relevance at all. What you don't say, however, is that you are very well aware that this individual has long been opposed to the primordial origin of granites and their enclosed polonium halos, and that you are also aware that his objections are almost completely of a philosophical rather than of a scientific nature. And there is more.

Even later on that same page you begin citing evolutionary geologists themselves in an attempt to buttress your arguments against testing uniformitarian views of granite's origin. Here you again hypothesize that, because certain individual mineral types have been grown in the lab, you can conclude, ". . . it seems unwise to pose a challenge to geological uniformitarianism on the basis of whether or not a hand-sized piece of granite is synthesized, since future experiments in science are unpredictable."

Thus you virtually throw out the significance of the exact test that disproves your claim. In the final analysis it is not a matter of whether you think the test is wise or unwise. What really matters is the truth, which is that there is no mystery about whether granite melted in the lab will, under conditions known to duplicate those deep in the Earth, cool slowly to form a duplicate of the original piece of granite. Such experiments have been done repeatedly, and the end result is not granite, but instead is always a fine-grained rock that is almost indistinguishable from rhyolite. In the parlance of modern physics, this result falsifies the assumption that granites formed naturally deep in the Earth. For evolutionary geologists — and some creationists as well — this fact is a very much unwanted truth, one they have thus far successfully kept clothed in utmost secrecy. In another document I note that the way the world's scientific community has been hoodwinked on this point is one of the greatest faux pas in the history of science. I am herein attempting to forestall the same thing happening to the creation science community.

The bottom line is that your claim for granite originating from the cooling of fossiliferous magma is directly contradicted and falsified by laboratory experiments, as well as by the presence of their enclosed primordial polonium halos. And there is more.

< 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 April 25, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates