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

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

Table of Contents

Preface and Introduction

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

Part II — Scriptural basis for cooperation WITH ICR and others.

Part III — The search for what the Bible teaches about creation: How it relates to the fallacious basis of radiometric dating.

Part IV — Granites and the foundations of the earth: Discovery of what God's Word has always plainly taught about their creation.

Part V — Identifying granites as the biblical foundations of the earth.

Part VI — The devil's attempt to counterfeit God's proof of creation, contrasted with what God's Word has always plainly taught about the creation of Earth's primordial rocks: How this relates to the everlasting gospel.

Part VII — Comparing the discovery of Earth's foundation rocks with what Andrew and ICR now propose about granites originating from fossiliferous sedimentary rocks.

Part VIII — More fallacies in the claims of a secondary origin of granite.

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.

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

Part XI — Examining the contention that regional relationships provide evidence for an igneous origin of granites.

Part XII — Before and since the Arkansas creation trial, I have widely publicized an experimental test, whose outcome unequivocally falsifies both the linchpin of evolutionary geology as well as your hypothesis of the secondary origin of granite and their enclosed polonium halos. Proof that it is a genuine falsification test: It has confronted the worldwide scientific community for over twenty-four years without being contradicted by evolutionists or anyone else.

Part XIII — 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?

Part XIV — My obligation to the worldwide scientific community in light of your disseminating the claim that polonium halos in granites are secondary: I MUST SPEAK OUT FOR THE SAKE OF PASTORS AND MANY OTHERS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE BADLY MISLED INTO THINKING THEY MUST ACCEPT YOUR NEW POSITION BECAUSE OF THE STRENGTH OF YOUR REPUTATION OF BEING THE WORLD'S LEADING CREATION GEOLOGIST.

Conclusion

Appendix A — Failure of attempts to use cross-cutting of different rock types to disprove the primordial origin of granites and their enclosed polonium halos.

Appendix B — A document submitted as a Letter to the Editor of Science concerning Roger Lewin's 5/17/85 news article in which he reported that researchers E. C. Scott and H. P. Cole could find no evidence of published evidence for creation and no evidence of censorship.

Appendix C — One of world's leading evolutionary geologists twice admits that polonium halos in granites still remain a tiny mystery.

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-toc.htm on October 25, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates