|
|
|
|
Appendix: Comments on Geological Objections
< Prev T of C
... 12
13
14
15
Epi.
Cat.
App.
Ref.
Cred.
Next >
Doc.: T of C
... #24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
Part: A
B
Using the assumption of uniformity, evolutionary geologists have presumed
to say that all rocks formed by natural processes over the duration of earth history.
But three facts—the Po-halo evidence for creation, the failure to
synthesize granite experimentally, and melted granite cooling to rhyolite in the
earth—show beyond doubt that this presumption is false and that vast
quantities of rocks were created and cannot be duplicated by natural processes.
Evolution is in a crisis. The publication of Creation's Tiny Mystery
has resurrected the Po-halo evidence for creation from the pages of premier scientific
research journals and brought it to the attention of elected officials and
the general public. Just as significantly, this book also reveals the failure of scientists to
publish a refutation of that evidence in those same scientific journals. In other
words, evolutionists have nothing scientifically credible to counter this evidence
for creation. This dilemma led them to disseminate a biased, confused picture of
my results in two of their publications.
In the evolutionist magazines, Creation/Evolution [XXII, 8, no. 1, 13
(1988)] and Jour. Geol. Education [36, 1 (1988)], an amateur geologist attempted to
disprove a creation origin of Canadian Precambrian rocks by selectively quoting
professional evolutionary geologists on the supposed geologic history of some
Po-halo-containing rocks near Bancroft, Ontario. These quotes closely interweave
the mineralogical descriptions of the rocks with the uniformitarian
interpretation of their origin and thus leave the false impression that the
presumed evolutionary origin of those rocks is as scientifically valid as the
mineralogical facts. This failure to separate fact from evolutionary theory is
a pitfall that has, over the past century, led many sincere geologists to erroneously
believe that evolution is valid. The Po-halo evidence for creation points the
way out of this pit for it shows that evolution's basic premise of the uniformitarian
principle is false.
One example of how this assumption leads to incorrect geological conclusions
about the Po-halo evidence for creation is discussed on pages 331-333. But the
main focus here concerns the writings of this evolutionist who, before the UT
forum, widely claimed that granite had been synthesized on television.
Unfortunately, his advisers did not fully inform him of the scientific aspects
of Po halos, and consequently he failed to distinguish between scientific fact and
conclusions based on evolutionary assumptions. This is evident by the complete
dependence on uniformitarian geology to criticize the evidence for creation in
the two [p. 335] publications cited above. To my knowledge the errors about my results
contained in these publications have not been publicly retracted as of early 1992
even though the errors in them were discussed at length in this book's second
(1988) edition. I am thus obliged to respond to them again in this edition,
especially in view of the fact that the same errors were repeated at the Second
ICC in 1990. (See pp. 339-352 for additional comments about the Second ICC
material.) In what follows the atheistic/evolutionist magazines cited above
are referred to as C/E and JGE, followed by respective page numbers, which pertain
to the remark under discussion.
In particular, these articles:
claim (C/E 18; JGE 5) that I identified some halo-containing rocks as granites
when in fact my report (Gentry et al. 1974) correctly states they were from a pegmatite;
imply (C/E 17-21, 23; JGE 4-7) that certain crystalline rocks which geologists
classify as "intrusive" discount a creation origin for those rocks, but actually
my creation model (pp. 133, 185, 325-326) includes these among the rock types that were created;
claim (C/E 20-26; JGE 10) that cross-cutting relationships show that
halo-containing rocks were the last rocks to form in the Bancroft area, but they
fail to recognize this too is perfectly in harmony with my creation model
(pp. 133, 184, 325-326), which envisions a continual series of geologically
oriented creative events throughout the 24-hour period of Day 1 (and possibly Day 3 as well);
claim (C/E 18; JGE 11) that regional metamorphism had to be "explained" to me,
which is not only a patronizing inaccuracy but also one that ignores metamorphism
being part of my creation model (see pp. 184, 185 in this and earlier editions of
this book);
quote an evolutionary geologist as an authority on how certain rocks formed
when, in fact, excerpts from the quote (C/E 18; JGE 5) reveal that geologist
is only speculating: "The author believes that . . . has . . .
been largely derived . . .", "The author feels the that the deposit is
therefore best classed as . . ." "Its mode of origin is in dispute";
imply (C/E 19; JGE 7) that many of my mica samples have undergone metamorphism
but neglect to say that the writer has never seen any of my hundreds of specimens.
And for the record, the ones I do have from Bancroft are not metamorphosed;
wrongly claim (C/E 25; JGE 9) my book has an error on the rate of lava cooling;
also claim (JGE 11) that I equate dikes and rhyolite with granite, which is opposite
of the view stated in this and earlier editions of this book (see pp. 130-131); [p. 336]
cite (JGE 10) Eichelberger (p. 131, in this book) to imply that granite can
form at great depth, but Eichelberger never responded to my letter as to whether he
had implied this;
question (C/E 22; JGE 10) why I chose the 3-minute half-life of Po-218 as
the measure of time for creation when this has been explained many times in my
reports and in this book (see pp. 23-37);
show (C/E 29) a picture of a road cut and imply that the exposed rocks could
only have formed by evolutionary processes, when these rock types
were—and still are—expressly included in my creation model
as described herein and in earlier editions (pp. 133-134; 325-326);
use (C/E 22; JGE 8) the terms "metasediments," "metavolcanics," and
"metamorphosed intrusive gneiss complex," in an evolutionary context in a futile
attempt to deny a creation origin of Canadian Precambrian rocks; in a further
effort to deny creation it is implied that these rocks contain fossils, first by
parenthetically mentioning (C/E 22) "fossil soil"—which in checking the
cited reference I find is only an inference with no substantiated evidence
whatsoever to suggest that the soil actually contains visible fossils—and
then by citing (C/E 27; JGE 11) a "personal communication" from an
evolutionist to imply that "stromatolites" (fossil algae mats) exist on certain
rocks near Bancroft. The author fails to acknowledge the report [H. J. Hoffman,
Precambrian Fossils, Pseudofossils, and Problematica in Canada, Geological
Survey of Canada, Bulletin 189, 30-34, (1971)] which questions their
authenticity, but does admit (C/E 28) that these structures do not contain any
organic matter that authentic stromatolites always exhibit. This admission of
nonexistent organic matter is repeated in the Second ICC material. Clearly, if
the structures at Bancroft were genuine stromatolites, they would contain organic
matter.
[I digress to add a similar absence of crucial evidence occurs in the presumed
finding of fossil brachiopods in granite made by two Soviet scientists (USSR
Acad. of Sciences, Doklady, Earth Sciences, 188, 33, 1970). My written inquiry
to the Soviet Union and database search at UT in Knoxville revealed nothing
that would confirm this report. This is not surprising considering that uncertainties
in the authors' identification of their "fossils" is readily apparent from the
report itself: "Among the many ovoids extracted from granite we noticed comparatively
few that had any specific shape," and "It is hard to identify altered
brachiopods found in equally altered rocks."]
| |
Get the entire printed version of our book for $18 + S/H.
To order our book and/or videos,
Call Us at (800) 467-6380, or use our order form.
|
|
Part: A
B
Doc.: T of C
... #24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
< Prev T of C
... 12
13
14
15
Epi.
Cat.
App.
Ref.
Cred.
Next >
|
|
