Earth Science Associates
Our Email of 11/3/2002
Greetings from Tennessee. Hope that all is going well at ICR.
Last month I informed Russ how pleased I was for his Impact article on the young-earth-age implications of the helium diffusion experiments on the zircons taken from the Fenton Hill site. Congratulations to all involved in those results.
On another topic, perhaps some of you are aware that our video, Fingerprints of Creation, which has been airing on various PBS stations around the country since last November — which airings have been strenuously opposed in some quarters — identifies Po halos in granites as evidence of fiat creation on Day 1 of creation week. In particular it focuses on El Capitan as one being one of the most visible examples of God's Ex Nihilo creation on planet Earth. Of course my book relates similar conclusions.
That being the case, I am therefore much interested in the views on granite formation presented on page 3, the ICR Research page of this month's issue of A&F, and Impact #353. In them I read of unequivocal evidence that at least some granites originated from the melting of fossilferous Flood-deposited sediments, and, hence, that at least some granites such as those at Yosemite, originated during the Flood. On that basis it is then claimed that since such rocks are neither created nor primordial, then neither can the Po halo parent nuclides be primordial. If true, these are very significant findings, and I need to radically alter my view of these rocks ASAP and the implications of Po halos in them right away.
All I need is the precise location where fossilferous granites exist which — using the language of Impact #353 — certainly means the exact location where someone has found unequivocal evidence of fossils existing within granite in the Sierras at the present time.
As I have always done when others have made such claims, I will immediately plan to visit the site, or sites, and see this remarkable evidence for myself. I say remarkable because a number of evolutionists — and others — have long sought to overthrow, discredit, or otherwise throw into doubt my scientific work supporting Po halos as evidence of fiat creation, by claiming, as is now being done, that the parent Po is secondary and/or that conventional geology's interpretation of various rock formations prove that Po-halo-containing granites cannot be primordial rocks created during Day 1 of the Genesis creation.
I have a creation seminar scheduled for this weekend and, to be truthful to the attendees, I may be obliged to comment on the published RATE members' views on Po halos, and how they must now be interpreted as being secondary in origin because they are now reported to unequivocally exist in fossil-bearing granites. Indeed, some in attendance may have already read about this new information. So it will obviously be necessary to communicate to the attendees that I have made a very urgent request for RATE members to supply exact location of such sites, desiring if at all possible to visit such sites even before the seminar.
That I will do this if at all possible is proved by the fact that, as some of you may remember, a claim about fossils in granite in New England was being circulated before the First ICC Symposium in 1986. Being informed of this presumed occurrence I journeyed to the University of New Hampshire, and there contacted the state geologist, who readily affirmed the existence of such an occurrence, and gave explicit directions as to where it could be found. I went and reported back to the state geologist that no fossils existed where he had directed me. He then gave other specific directions; again I went and again found nothing. Then there was a third time, and again no fossils were present. Never in any instance did the state geologist argue that the fossils were there after I returned to report that they weren't. So I pressed him for another site. He said he was sure they existed in still another location. The problem, he said, was that they were in an isolated location in the mountains of New Hampshire, far off the main roads, thus requiring extensive hiking to get there. I volunteered to pay him to take me there. He deferred, saying this would take him away from his job for too long. So I proposed to rent a helicopter, and I would pay for it so we could quickly go and come. He still backed out.
Since then I have visited every site in North America where reports of fossils in granite have been cited to me as proof that Po halos in granites cannot be primordial. In no instance was there any validity to the claims. They were all spurious, the result of evolutionists vainly trying to invent something to substantiate their beliefs. In saying that I am excepting the present reports in A&F and Impact. However, the latter do not give the locations of such presumed sites, thus my very urgent request for this information.
On another topic, in closing, it is unfortunate that I find a tactic used generally by evolutionists (and at times by those who aren't) to routinely censor my replies to their arguments against my results, now making its appearance in principle in the Endnotes and References of the Impact article. In particular, the Impact article cites Ref. 9 on how the occurrence of U, Th, and Po halos in what are said to be regionally metamorphosed rocks could confirm the large-scale rapid flows of hydrothermal fluids involved in regional catastrophism. Now the last part of Ref. 9 refers to a CRSQ article, an article with a title designed to attract attention to what might initially be assumed to be genuine geological concerns regarding the occurrence of various radiohalos.
What I find interesting is that some of the geological sentiments expressed in that CRSQ paper now reappear in a somewhat different form in the Impact article. In itself that is not surprising, considering that the author of the Impact article and the author of the cited CSRQ article are very good friends, and are known to have discussed these matters on many occasions.
But there is an enigma here, to me at least. Possibly it won't be such to the other members of the RATE group. In particular, the author of the Impact article — which I assume was read and approved by other members of RATE group — knows for certainty that I published a lengthy rebuttal in the very same issue of the CRSQ to the CRSQ article which he cited in the last part of Ref. 9. In my CSRQ rebuttal I noted that the supposed geological concerns about the Po halo evidence for creation were based entirely on assumptions and interpretations straight out of evolutionary textbooks, and in fact were virtually indistinguishable from conventional evolutionary geological lore.
What I do not understand is — knowing of my publication of both geological and Po halo evidence that refuted the CRSQ paper he cited — why did he omit citing my paper as well? Certainly there is enough space on the page to have done this. And there is a second item here as well.
Far more recently I published another even more detailed response to the same author's criticisms of the primordial nature of polonium halos. As the author of the Impact article well knows, this exchange was published in CENTJ Vol. 12 (No. 3) 287 (1998), and presents a summary of what I believe are rather convincing arguments for the primordial nature of Po halos in granites. I do not know why the author omitted citing either of those articles. What I do know is that both of my articles contain information that contradicts the contention that Po halos in Yosemite granites must be of secondary origin, and that such granites originated at the Flood.
I realize, however, that A&F and the RATE project's results all come under the auspices of ICR, which certainly has the right to publish anything it wants. So in the last analysis it is under no obligation to cite any papers that challenge or contradict its official position on the origin of granite, if it chooses not to do so.
Right now it is obvious that ICR has made a very strong effort to convince the readership of A&F that it has solved the problem of Po halos in granites by stating rather unequivocally that such are Flood rocks, and hence that its Po halos are secondary.
Whether those claims will stand up under scrutiny remains to be seen. I anxiously await receiving the locations of the fossil-bearing granites referred to in those articles. I can be wrong, and am still learning. I will be most happy to investigate the granite claims, and join with you in proclaiming granites as Flood rocks if the evidence is as strong as is stated in the articles. After all, some day I expect to stand before the Great White Throne, and be judged by what I have done and said. In that day I certainly do not want the Lord to say that evidence was presented to me showing that I was off track, and why did I not change my ways while I had opportunity to do so?
Earth Science Associates