Examining the contention that regional relationships provide evidence for an igneous origin of granites.
Point 2 of Andrew's email contains his last argument for a fossiliferous Flood-rock origin of granite. The basis of his argument is almost identical to the others.
Again my friend Andrew has described a scenario which he fervently believes is truth. The problem is that what is described is only what he infers happened in the past. What exists today at the sites mentioned is all that is actually known. What Andrew seems to overlook is that his conclusions about how these sites came to their present condition are completely dependent on the interpretive assumptions he employs. It's almost as if he doesn't realize these underlying assumptions even exist.
Nevertheless, they do exist, and it is quite evident that the assumptions used here are virtually identical with those of conventional geology. It's just that simple. If you use their assumptions, you will come to their conclusions about the secondary origin of granite. However, I realize that some who read this may think the evolutionary assumptions are correct after all, and hence that the description given may still have some credibility. So, I want to go a step further in reasoning this out. From now on in this document I will address Andrew personally.
I am asking you to stop and consider this matter, my friend, for there is a very significant question you have unwittingly introduced into your discussion. We have known each other much more than ten years. You know of the primordial polonium halo evidence that I believe is coercive for granites being primordial rocks. You know of my scientific reports on that evidence which remain unrefuted after several decades of being critically tested. And you also know that I am the one person who potentially stands in your and ICR's way of convincing the creation science community — and for that matter, as many in the world as you can get to listen — of your new paradigm, which is that granites are secondary rocks and that you have solved the tiny mystery of creation within the realm of known physical laws. So it stands to reason that you and ICR would want to make every reasonable effort to convince me of the facts of your case, on the premise that I would be fair enough to come on board with you and ICR, if the facts so warrant it. After all that would be a reasonable assumption, for I am not a stranger. You both have known me for many years, and you, Andrew, and I have collaborated on the videos for many years.
So I ask: If you really believe to have discovered various sites where, in your words, "it is possible to literally walk over the outcrops from fossiliferous sedimentary rocks through zones of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, [to where] the whole rock melted to form granite", then why didn't you long ago call me and offer to lead me to the exact spot in the Zoroaster Granite in the Grand Canyon where this phenomena exists? According to the above description, you believe to have an open and shut case. And, according to the November 2002 Acts and Facts you have been in America collecting specimens in Yosemite in the recent past. Likewise, why didn't you offer to lead me to the exact spot at Harney Peak Granite in South Dakota where I could walk over from sedimentary rocks to granite, and possibly be as convinced as you are that indeed the sedimentary rocks had gone through the same process of transformation that you now describe? Your silence caught my attention, and so in April I called ICR and asked Steve Austin if, during his many trips to the Grand Canyon, he had ever seen any sites that fitted the description you give. He said he would think about it and get back with me if such came to mind, either there or elsewhere. Shortly thereafter I called again and asked John Arend the same questions. Steve never called back, but John Arend did send back an email saying that neither he nor Steve Austin knew of the sites you describe. Does this not tell you something?
Indeed, why is it, my friend, that despite evolutionary geologists' long and very diligent efforts to find something to cast my published evidence for primordial halos and granites in doubt — and despite the fact that thousands of them are well acquainted with the geology of the Grand Canyon and the Harney Peak Granite — none have ever even remotely mentioned to me of having found evidence for the kind of geological scenario for the secondary origin of granite that you now claim. May I respectfully suggest the reason for this deafening silence is that your claim is not only fatally flawed; it can easily be shown to be fatally flawed by the simple process of carrying it to its logical conclusion.
In particular, when you claim to find sites you where the felsic minerals in the metasedimentary rocks have melted to form migmatites, and then finally to where at temperatures around 735°C and pressures of 5 kbar and above the whole rock melted to form granite," you are, first of all, very definitely claiming to know the precise, naturally-occurring conditions under which such melts cooled to form granites. Of course you didn't see this actually occur. Rather it's only an assumption you make. So in effect you are again attempting to prove your thesis for a secondary origin of granite by making assumption appear as fact. Nevertheless, because your assumption of granite origin precisely matches the temperature and pressure conditions which evolutionary geologists believe are those needed for granites to form, this brings us to the defining moment of deciding the validity of your claim — namely, that your contention about granites and polonium halos being secondary in origin suffers a fatal blow from the fact that nowhere do you propose an experimental test of your hypothesis. The fact is that anyone who proposes a hypothesis without proposing an experimental test generally has no worries about defending it against falsification. But in your case, even though you avoid mentioning it, there is a definitive test. Thus it's time to focus attention on this exceedingly important topic, and how and why it is the downfall of what you and ICR have so widely promoted.
Earth Science Associates