Using the assumption of uniformity, evolutionary geologists have presumed to say that all rocks formed by natural processes over the duration of earth history. But three facts—the Po-halo evidence for creation, the failure to synthesize granite experimentally, and melted granite cooling to rhyolite in the earth—show beyond doubt that this presumption is false and that vast quantities of rocks were created and cannot be duplicated by natural processes. Evolution is in a crisis. The publication of Creation's Tiny Mystery has resurrected the Po-halo evidence for creation from the pages of premier scientific research journals and brought it to the attention of elected officials and the general public. Just as significantly, this book also reveals the failure of scientists to publish a refutation of that evidence in those same scientific journals. In other words, evolutionists have nothing scientifically credible to counter this evidence for creation. This dilemma led them to disseminate a biased, confused picture of my results in two of their publications.

In the evolutionist magazines, Creation/Evolution [XXII, 8, no. 1, 13 (1988)] and Jour. Geol. Education [36, 1 (1988)], an amateur geologist attempted to disprove a creation origin of Canadian Precambrian rocks by selectively quoting professional evolutionary geologists on the supposed geologic history of some Po-halo-containing rocks near Bancroft, Ontario. These quotes closely interweave the mineralogical descriptions of the rocks with the uniformitarian interpretation of their origin and thus leave the false impression that the presumed evolutionary origin of those rocks is as scientifically valid as the mineralogical facts. This failure to separate fact from evolutionary theory is a pitfall that has, over the past century, led many sincere geologists to erroneously believe that evolution is valid. The Po-halo evidence for creation points the way out of this pit for it shows that evolution's basic premise of the uniformitarian principle is false.

One example of how this assumption leads to incorrect geological conclusions about the Po-halo evidence for creation is discussed on pages 331-333. But the main focus here concerns the writings of this evolutionist who, before the UT forum, widely claimed that granite had been synthesized on television. Unfortunately, his advisers did not fully inform him of the scientific aspects of Po halos, and consequently he failed to distinguish between scientific fact and conclusions based on evolutionary assumptions. This is evident by the complete dependence on uniformitarian geology to criticize the evidence for creation in the two [p. 335] publications cited above. To my knowledge the errors about my results contained in these publications have not been publicly retracted as of early 1992 even though the errors in them were discussed at length in this book's second (1988) edition. I am thus obliged to respond to them again in this edition, especially in view of the fact that the same errors were repeated at the Second ICC in 1990. (See pp. 339-352 for additional comments about the Second ICC material.) In what follows the atheistic/evolutionist magazines cited above are referred to as C/E and JGE, followed by respective page numbers, which pertain to the remark under discussion.

In particular, these articles:

1. claim (C/E 18; JGE 5) that I identified some halo-containing rocks as granites when in fact my report (Gentry et al. 1974) correctly states they were from a pegmatite;

2. imply (C/E 17-21, 23; JGE 4-7) that certain crystalline rocks which geologists classify as "intrusive" discount a creation origin for those rocks, but actually my creation model (pp. 133, 185, 325-326) includes these among the rock types that were created;

3. claim (C/E 20-26; JGE 10) that cross-cutting relationships show that halo-containing rocks were the last rocks to form in the Bancroft area, but they fail to recognize this too is perfectly in harmony with my creation model (pp. 133, 184, 325-326), which envisions a continual series of geologically oriented creative events throughout the 24-hour period of Day 1 (and possibly Day 3 as well);

4. claim (C/E 18; JGE 11) that regional metamorphism had to be "explained" to me, which is not only a patronizing inaccuracy but also one that ignores metamorphism being part of my creation model (see pp. 184, 185 in this and earlier editions of this book);

5. quote an evolutionary geologist as an authority on how certain rocks formed when, in fact, excerpts from the quote (C/E 18; JGE 5) reveal that geologist is only speculating: "The author believes that . . . has . . . been largely derived . . .", "The author feels the that the deposit is therefore best classed as . . ." "Its mode of origin is in dispute";

6. imply (C/E 19; JGE 7) that many of my mica samples have undergone metamorphism but neglect to say that the writer has never seen any of my hundreds of specimens. And for the record, the ones I do have from Bancroft are not metamorphosed;

7. wrongly claim (C/E 25; JGE 9) my book has an error on the rate of lava cooling; also claim (JGE 11) that I equate dikes and rhyolite with granite, which is opposite of the view stated in this and earlier editions of this book (see pp. 130-131); [p. 336]

8. cite (JGE 10) Eichelberger (p. 131, in this book) to imply that granite can form at great depth, but Eichelberger never responded to my letter as to whether he had implied this;

9. question (C/E 22; JGE 10) why I chose the 3-minute half-life of Po-218 as the measure of time for creation when this has been explained many times in my reports and in this book (see pp. 23-37);

10. show (C/E 29) a picture of a road cut and imply that the exposed rocks could only have formed by evolutionary processes, when these rock types were—and still are—expressly included in my creation model as described herein and in earlier editions (pp. 133-134; 325-326);

11. use (C/E 22; JGE 8) the terms "metasediments," "metavolcanics," and "metamorphosed intrusive gneiss complex," in an evolutionary context in a futile attempt to deny a creation origin of Canadian Precambrian rocks; in a further effort to deny creation it is implied that these rocks contain fossils, first by parenthetically mentioning (C/E 22) "fossil soil"—which in checking the cited reference I find is only an inference with no substantiated evidence whatsoever to suggest that the soil actually contains visible fossils—and then by citing (C/E 27; JGE 11) a "personal communication" from an evolutionist to imply that "stromatolites" (fossil algae mats) exist on certain rocks near Bancroft. The author fails to acknowledge the report [H. J. Hoffman, Precambrian Fossils, Pseudofossils, and Problematica in Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 189, 30-34, (1971)] which questions their authenticity, but does admit (C/E 28) that these structures do not contain any organic matter that authentic stromatolites always exhibit. This admission of nonexistent organic matter is repeated in the Second ICC material. Clearly, if the structures at Bancroft were genuine stromatolites, they would contain organic matter.

    [I digress to add a similar absence of crucial evidence occurs in the presumed finding of fossil brachiopods in granite made by two Soviet scientists (USSR Acad. of Sciences, Doklady, Earth Sciences, 188, 33, 1970). My written inquiry to the Soviet Union and database search at UT in Knoxville revealed nothing that would confirm this report. This is not surprising considering that uncertainties in the authors' identification of their "fossils" is readily apparent from the report itself: "Among the many ovoids extracted from granite we noticed comparatively few that had any specific shape," and "It is hard to identify altered brachiopods found in equally altered rocks."]