Group

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:20:54 -0400, Jon Saboe EID Founder wrote:

Thanks to Jon for posting this message about "granite". I am particularly
interested in it because I am studying a Geology unit this semester.

My response was getting too long, so I have split off that part of Jon's post
regarding Polonium halos, which I will answer next.

Also let me say how, even though I am an OEC, and therefore think Jon's
YEC position is wrong, how much I *respect* a YEC who
straightforwardly sets out evidence for his position, in contrast to those
who snipe away at OEC positions but haven't the *guts* to place their own
position on the table so it can be criticised.

At the end of his post Jon gave "Thanks to Evolution-Facts.org
(http://www.evolution-facts.org) for some of the ... material". However, I
cannot see who the person(s) are behind this website, and therefore cannot
assess their geological qualifications. Perhaps Jon will reveal who it is. As I
will show (especially in the part relating to Polonium halos, Jon has been
seriously mislead by his (as yet unnamed) source.

At the very end of his post Jon says:

"Any alternative explanations for the above evidence is very
welcome! However, of you want to believe in millions of years of
'cooling earth' you must explain how radioactive markings remained
in molten material for the duration."

I will show that Jon's source has created a strawman and the evidence is
perfectly consistent with "millions of years of `cooling earth'" and with
what "radioactive markings remain... in" previously "molten material", namely
granite.

But before I begin, let me repeat what I have said several times on CED
(and no YEC has yet even *attempted* to answer), that the *real* problem
for YEC is that if the Earth and/or Universe is only of the order of ~10,000
years, then what YECs need to show is all* dating methods *converging*
on an age of the Earth and/or Universe of ~10,000 years":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/5469
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/5457
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/3935
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/3931

As I have pointed out, if it is claimed by YECs that this date of ~10,000
years is the same for *both* the origin of the Universe and the Earth, then
because it is: a) so recent; and b) the *same* date for both, then
the `signal' in the date for an age of ~10,000 years should be *deafening*
and would overwhelm the `noise' of any other date(s).

But in fact YEC is barely able to provide *any* "scientific evidence that
yields an age of the Earth of ~10,000 years*, let alone *all* the scientific
evidence *converging* on an age of the Earth of ~10,000 years.

If YECs fail to address this *obvious* point, then it shows they don't
*really*, in their heart of hearts, believe their own theory.

But OTOH, because OEC/PC's like me really *do* believe, in our heart of
hearts, that the age of the Earth of ~5 billion years, and the Universe of
~14 billion years, we will argue for *all* the relevant evidence converging
on those two dates. But because: 1) there are *two* dates; and 2) they are not
recent (to put it mildly!) the signal is weaker than if they were both
~10,000.

The bottom line is that if what most YEC believe was true, that both* the
Earth *and* the Universe were is only ~10,000 years old, then it would be
so *obvious* that they wouldn't need to scrape the bottom of the barrel
trying to looking for obscure anomalous evidence like Polonium radiohalos
in granite (and *failing* to boot!), as Jon does in this post.

What YECs need is not just: 1) *negative* evidence like Polonium
radiohalos in granite pointing away from an age of "millions of years"; but
2) *positive* evidence of Polonium radiohalos in granite (and in fact *all*
radioactive dates) pointing *together* to an age of the Earth and Universe
of only ~10,000!

JS>Granite is that bedrock blanket that covers the globe and forms a thick
>layer with the continents of the world above it and the basalt and magma
>below it. It is found throughout the world, but it has some very unique
>properties.

I would appreciate Jon posting evidence (e.g. a quote from a
Geology text or scientific journal) that "Granite is ..." 1) "bedrock"; 2) a
"blanket"; and 3) "covers the globe".

According to one of my textbooks, "The dominant rock of the oceanic
crust is basalt", not granite:

"The dominant rock of the oceanic crust is basalt, a fine-grained
igneous rock, sometimes porphyritic, that is always dark gray or black.
Compositionally equivalent to gabbro, basalt is the most common kind
of extrusive igneous rock. Phenocrysts, when present in a basalt
porphyry, can be either plagioclase, pyroxene, or olivine." (Skinner B.J.
& Porter S.C., The Dynamic Earth: An Introduction to Physical
Geology," [1989], Wiley: New York, Third Edition, 1995, p.98)

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:00:53 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote: [...]

CL>The chemical arguments about granite are beyond me but I question
>the basic picture you describe. Aren't the continents islands of granite
>resting on a global layer of heavier basalt? Where the sea-floor is
>spreading, that's not granite being generated, is it? [...]

My understanding is the same as Cliff's (especially since I have now read up
more on it). See tagline for example: "The crust we find lining the bottom
of the worlds oceans is largely made up of basalt ... Continents, however,
have an even lower density than the oceanic crust."

JS>Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light
>color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has
>an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar
>crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende.

As Ward & Brownlee point out "characteristic speckled appearance of both
of these rocks ["granite and andesite"], compared to the more somber,
chocolate to black color of basalt, comes from their containing even more
of the white (and low-density) silica", which is a result of the
"differentiation of granite from material of a basaltic composition", a
"process [which] takes place in several steps", involving "the key ingredient
... water, and the key mechanism ... subduction" (see tagline).

JS>Granite is solid and
>hard without cracks or seams, and is very strong.

Again, I would appreciate Jon posting evidence (e.g. a quote from a
Geology text or scientific journal) that "Granite is ... without cracks or
seams". Especially in respect of "cracks or seams" between *horizontal*
layers of granite.

JS>Granite cannot be created in the laboratory.

I would appreciate Jon posting evidence (e.g. a quote from a Geology text,
or from a scientific journal) that "Granite cannot be created in the
laboratory".

That is, 1) scientists have *tried* to "create... [granite] ... in the
laboratory" (why would they?); 2) those that have tried to "create...
[granite] ... in the laboratory" have *all* failed; and 3) the reason they
failed was not because of non-scientific reasons, e.g. they couldn't get
sufficient funding to reproduce in a "laboratory", the conditions of
temperature and pressure necessary to "create ["granite"] ... in the
laboratory", etc.

And even if "Granite *cannot* be created in the laboratory", it does not
follow that "it could never have solidified from molten material ... cooling
over time". For example, it may be that the conditions of pressure,
temperature and time to make granite are too difficult to *economically*
reproduce "in the laboratory". For example, "Many of the chemical
reactions that occur in rocks undergoing metamorphism are of the ... kind"
"that require millions of years to proceed to completion":

"Chemical reactions involve energy, and two compounds will react
only if a lower state of energy is reached in the process. At the
lowest possible energy state, reaction ceases, and we say a state of
equilibrium has been reached. A certain amount of time is needed
for any chemical reaction to reach equilibrium. Some reactions,
such as the burning of methane gas (CH4) to yield carbon dioxide
and water, happen so rapidly that they create explosions. At the
other end of the scale are reactions that require millions of years to
proceed to completion. Many of the chemical reactions that occur
in rocks undergoing metamorphism are of the latter kind. No
reliable ways have yet been developed to determine exactly how
long a given metamorphic rock has remained at a given temperature
and pressure. However, it can be readily demonstrated in the
laboratory that high temperature, high pressure, and long reaction
times produce large mineral grains. Thus, it is possible to draw the
interesting general conclusion that coarse-grained rocks are the
products of long sustained metamorphic conditions (possibly over
millions of years) at high temperatures and pressures, while fine-
grained rocks are products of lower temperatures, lower pressures,
and shorter reaction times. (Skinner, et al., 1995, p.147)

The difficulty of trying to "create... [granite] "in the laboratory" is seen by
this brief account of the need to create pressures of *millions* of
atmospheres ("megabars"), in order to try to simulate conditions deep
within the Earth:

"The pioneering experimental work of Bridgman, beginning in the
1920s, was undertaken at pressures up to 100 kilobars, which
corresponds to a depth of only 300 km within the Earth. However,
in the past few years, dynamic determinations of the compressibility
of minerals and rocks have been made by a number of researchers
up to pressures in excess of those at the centre of the Earth. Such
high pressures are created for very short time intervals behind the
front of a strong shock wave set up by an explosive charge. They
are an order of magnitude greater than those that can be obtained
by static methods. Although the pressures are maintained for
intervals of usually less than a microsecond this is long enough to
allow measurements to be made of some geophysically important
quantities. More recently, sustained high pressures and
temperatures have been made possible by the refinement of the
diamond-anvil pressure cell, an instrument in which two tiny
diamond faces are squeezed together with a solid sample in
between. Previously, high pressures were obtained by applying very
large forces to relatively large surface areas. In the new technique
high pressures are generated by applying modest forces to very
small areas (a few hundred micrometres in diameter). A problem in
this approach is the possible failure of the diamonds themselves.
Even carefully selected and shaped diamonds will crack and shatter
into diamond dust if not properly aligned and supported. Pressures
of 1.7 megabars, equivalent to that just below the core-mantle
boundary, have been obtained. At these pressures the diamonds (the
hardest substance known) began to deform." (Smith D.G., ed.,
"The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences," [1981,
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1982, reprint, p.46)

JS>When melted and allowed to
>harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure.
>The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be
>made by cooling the initial molten materials.

This seems to be just a play on words. According to another of my Geology
textbooks, "rhyolite" is just the "fine-grained volcanic equivalent" of
"the coarse-grained plutonic rock granite":

"Igneous rocks rich in silica, like the coarse-grained plutonic rock
granite or its fine-grained volcanic equivalent rhyolite tend to contain
abundant quartz, K-feldspar and Na-rich plagioclase, and so are light in
color." (Murphy B. & Nance D., "Earth Science Today," Brooks/Cole
Wadsworth: Pacific Grove CA, 1998, p.30)

JS>In other words, it could never
>have solidified from molten material and gasses cooling over time, as
>required by evolutionary theory!

First, even if "Granite cannot be created in the laboratory" (which has not
yet been shown), or "made by cooling the initial molten materials", it does
not then follow that it "could never have" in *nature* "solidified from
molten material and gasses cooling over time".

Second, it is not just "evolutionary theory" that claims "granite ... solidified
from molten material and gasses cooling over time". Old-Earth
*creationists* (like me) claim it too/ Ironically Jon and/or his source is just
perpetuating the *Darwinists'* "`official caricature' of the creation-
evolution debate" that creation is *only* young-Earth creation (YEC) and
everything else is evolution:

"The Weiner article and book review illustrate what I would call the
`official caricature' of the creation-evolution debate, a distortion that is
either explicit or implicit in nearly all media and textbook treatments of
the subject. According to the caricature, `evolution' is a simple, unitary
process that one can see in operation today and that is also supported
unequivocally by all the fossil evidence. Everyone accepts the truth of
evolution except a disturbingly large group of biblical fundamentalists,
who insist that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old and the
fossil beds were laid down in Noah's flood. These baffling persons
either are uninformed about the evidence or perhaps choose to
disregard it as a temptation placed before us by God to test our faith in
Genesis. There is no conceivable intellectual basis for their dissent,
because the evidence for evolution is absolutely conclusive." (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science,
Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995,
pp.72-73)

JS>As such, it should never be considered 'igneous' rock; but instead is often
>referred to as 'creation' or 'genesis' rock.

I would appreciate Jon providing evidence (e.g. a quote from a Geology
text, or from a scientific journal) that granite "is often referred to as
'creation' or 'genesis' rock", i.e. in the scientific literature.

I did a Google search on "creation rock" + "granite" and it came up with
less than a page and apart from a couple of references to a place called
"Creation Rock" the rest of the references all seem to be YEC sites or
discussion of YEC claims.

A search of "genesis rock" + "granite" on Google turned up only four pages,
and again they all seem to be YEC sites or discussion of YEC claims.

JS>Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks.
>Whatever it's origins, it was deposited in it's present form prior to life
>on this planet.

That "Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks"
would not prove that "it was deposited in it's present form prior to life on
this
planet". First, granite could be made from "sedimentary rocks" that "contain[ed]
fossils" recycled through plate tectonics and volcanoes, the heat and pressure
of which would destroy all trace of recognisable life.

Second, if granite is usually formed from "molten rock that ... comes from the
mantle" and "this molten rock rises, in the form of a blob or plume":

"Igneous rocks can also be classified according to grain size. This
classification system is especially useful in that grain size reflects the
rate at which igneous rocks cooled from a molten state. If a rock cools
slowly, its crystals can grow large, thus producing a coarse-grained
rock, whereas rapid cooling "freezes" molten rock into small crystals
that yield a finegrained rock. The fine-grained equivalent of granite is
called rhyolite, and the fine-grained equivalent of gabbro is called
basalt. The dense rock that forms the oceanic crust consists primarily
of basalt. Most molten rock that cools within the crust or at the earth's
surface comes from the mantle; as this molten rock rises, in the form of
a blob or plume, it melts the crustal rock with which it comes into
contact. When molten rock is found within the earth, it is known as
magma, but when it appears at the earth's surface through an opening
called a vent, it is called lava. Some magma cools within the earth and
thus never reaches the surface. Because cooling here usually takes
place slowly, the result is nearly always an igneous rock of coarse grain
size, such as granite or gabbro. Lava, in contrast, usually cools rapidly
at the earth's surface, and the result is usually a fine grained igneous
rock such as rhyolite or basalt." (Stanley S.M., "Earth and Life
Through Time," [1986] W.H. Freeman & Co: New York, Second
Edition, 1989, pp.619-620)

then it would not be expected to "contain... fossils such as are found in
sedimentary rocks".

[continued]

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's begin our examination of the plate tectonic process with ocean
basins. The crust we find lining the bottom of the worlds oceans is largely
made up of basalt, the same type of volcanic rock that makes up the
Hawaiian Islands. This material originates within the deeper mantle region
of Earth; it ascends along the rising zones of the convection cells. As this
hot, dense mantle material rises toward the surface, it moves into regions
of ever lessening pressure, because the weight of overlying material
decreases. A lower density liquid separates from the higher-density mantle
material, rising to the surface as the `lava' we are familiar with from so
many movies of erupting volcanoes. The magma enters a huge crack in the
surface of the planet formed by the pulling apart of two plates and solidifies
into basaltic ocean crust. It too begins to move away from the `spreading
center' where it first lithified, and more new magma wells up to take its
place-an endless conveyor belt. The basalt produced in the spreading
centers has a much different composition from its `parent,' the mantle
material rising along the limbs of the convection cells. Because it contains a
much higher percentage of silica atoms, it is much lower in density than the
mantle material. The basalt has *differentiated* from the parent material
(which, when occasionally found on the surface, has the name peridiotite).
This differentiation from a peridiotite composition to a basaltic composition
is the final step of oceanic crust formation. Continents, however, have an
even lower density than the oceanic crust. The recipe for their creation
requires a further step in this arcane lithic cooking: the formation of the
rock types granite and andesite. The characteristic speckled appearance of
both of these rocks, compared to the more somber, chocolate to black
color of basalt, comes from their containing even more of the white (and
low-density) silica. The major step in forming continental crust is thus the
differentiation of granite from material of a basaltic composition. This
process takes place in several steps, but the key ingredient is water, and the
key mechanism is called subduction." (Ward P.D. & Brownlee D., `Rare
Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe," Copernicus:
New York NY, 2000, p.198. Emphasis in original)
Stephen E. Jones. sejones@.... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------