Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, Don DeYoung, Eugene Chaffin, John Baumgardner, Larry Vardiman, Russ Humphreys
November 2002 A&F, Impact #353, and granites, fossils,
and flood rocks — a very urgent request for exact location of fossiliferous granites
Sunday, November 03, 2002 9:02 PM
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
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?