Earth Science Associates

Open Letter to ICR

Home Reports Videos Books Online Store Exchanges . . . Unrefuted Challenge to NAS Print-friendly Version

11/02 Email ICR's Reply Open Lt. #1 Print-friendly Version

PDF Version

Part VII

Comparing the discovery of Earth's foundation rocks with what Andrew and ICR now propose about granites originating from fossiliferous sedimentary rocks.

The present obstacle to this alliance is that ICR's November 2002 Impact article, located at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/pdf/imp-353.pdf, carries the following statement:

• "The initial focus of the research has been granitic rocks that had to have formed during the Flood year. In each case there is unequivocal evidence that the granitic rocks formed by the melting during metamorphism (changes in rocks induced by heat and pressure) of fossiliferous Flood-deposited sedimentary layers, and that the resultant granitic magmas (melted rocks) then intruded into other Flood-deposited layers." [Impact #353]

Obviously, ICR's claim that granites formed from magma derived from fossiliferous Flood-deposited sedimentary rocks is the opposite of what God's Word has always plainly taught about the creation of Earth's primordial rocks. It clearly contradicts the identification of granites as the biblical foundations of the Earth, the rocks that God created in the beginning of creation week. I may be in error but it seems to me that ICR will only involve itself in additional contradictions if it continues to promote this view. For this reason I hope it will reassess its position. To assist in that decision I now focus on the only two possibilities for my analysis of Earth's foundation rocks, and show that only one is realistic, and the other is just plain unbiblical.

One possibility is that, if ICR's view were assumed to be correct, then my analysis and conclusions about the Bible's teachings on the foundations of the Earth must somehow have to be shown to be in error. And the only way this could occur is for it to be demonstrated that the obvious, commonly-understood meanings of the words of the Bible on this most important topic are not the true meanings at all; instead it would have to be somehow shown that God intended these words to have vague and uncertain meanings, where each person can pick and choose his own meanings, meanings that would then be open to question, meanings such that it would be difficult to really ascertain the truth. It would be like every man for himself. All would be free to pick and choose so as to fit in their pet theory of how the Earth originated. In this case the common man would have no chance to understand the biblical truth of creation if he sought help from the experts.

On the other hand, if my analysis of what God's Word has always plainly taught about the creation of Earth's primordial rocks is correct, then the words of the Bible on this most important topic have their obvious meaning. This would make it easy for the common man to conclude that God meant for El Capitan, Mt. Rushmore and Pike's Peak to stand tall as monuments of the accuracy of the literal meaning of Genesis. In that case it would again be very easy for the common man to conclude that God unmistakably marked the Genesis rocks as proof that He meant exactly what He said on Mt. Sinai when Christ wrote with His own finger that, ". . . in six days the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

I think that some who read this might readily agree that only one of the foregoing is realistic. Even so, there are certain tests available which even further confirm this assessment. The first and foremost is from the Bible itself. I again refer to that part of Andrew's 11/17/02 email, where he says, "We would welcome you joining us in showing compromising Christians and unbelievers alike that these evidences in God's world powerfully support what God's Word has always plainly taught." I am much pleased, that Andrew and ICR agree that we should stand on the scriptures. That means in particular we must stand firmly on what Paul said to the Galatians:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

So the fundamental reason underlying my belief that God did lead in Andrew's earlier participations in the videos, as well as his subsequent affirmations of them, is because they are clearly in accord with the biblical definition of the granites being the foundations of the Earth. Thus, in my view, there is no question that in principle Paul's counsel applies to Andrew's earlier affirmations. So, even if he were now to claim that an angel of heaven led him to different views, I would be unable to go with him. In fact, I must strongly oppose him on this matter. But how can I know for certain whether I must do this if ICR persists in its present course?

Quite simply, if God did lead in Andrew's previous assessment of granites and their enclosed polonium halos being primordial, it follows there must be something drastically wrong with the evidence he and ICR now cite as a basis for their promotion of a diametrically opposite view. If facts do reveal fatal flaws in that position, then Andrew and ICR have, most unfortunately — and up until now, most unwittingly — become entwined in the process of perpetrating one of the more significant misconceptions ever to come upon the creation science community. If nothing else than for my own edification, it behooves me to diligently pursue the truth about these new claims. They must be critically tested in every possible way.

Copyright © 2004, All Rights Reserved

Earth Science Associates
24246 Paulson Dr.
Loma Linda, CA 92354