W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

Death thundered like a tornado into the world, and its residency is oblivious of all efforts, except those of Jesus Christ, including that age-old method: ignore it! It will not however go away, spiritualised or vaporised or socialised or politicised or criticised. Only the blood of Christ is adequate, by death, to remove its toll.

What however of the cosmologies, which have been seeking to become quite cosy. Let us look at their field.

Assumptions of what non-god could not do, are repeatedly made for example in Ross's cited work, as if in some esoteric way this had some bearing on time, in some way limited God's creative inputs and their time and space aspects and order. Naive assumptions about E=MC2, during or limiting the process of creation are made, again revealing the secular thrust of thought, however unconscious. Indeed, the concept of process in the construction of process is far from coincident with the sovereign majesty of the Biblical account, and it is itself an importation into the text.

The recently active Hubble-space telescope, confirming as we have cited, 'missing mass' is simply ignored by Ross here (see Slusher, supra Chs. 1 and 2). Dr Russell Humphreys' concept of the stretching out of space in creation, a specific point with numbers of scriptural statements, is given no account, though the concepts have been published for some years, presented as a cosmological model at the Third International Conference on Creationism (1994) in Pittsburgh, and now may appear in coming works, one of them Starlight and Time, just published. (Creation Magazine, 17:1, p. 38, also notes that Dr Ross has in fact declined to debate the issue on radio, with Dr Robert Humphreys.) Slusher's many cosmological conundrums are given only passing thought. Indeed, as Slusher points out, there are all sorts of cosmological hypotheses which can be made (see Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, pp. 8 ff., cf. DeYoung, Astronomy and the Bible, pp. 90-95 on quasars and diverse red-shift interpretations). These are of interest philosophically, as to why they are held - as indeed is the case with all philosophy, often a study in mental pathology, historical crests of interaction and mutual criticism.

It is however classic when what the system could produce again and again, in Ross's work, becomes a limit, or a time measurement, in a book ostensibly dealing, at least in some sense, with the Creator.

a) Conceptual Confusion

Let us examine further. Most amazing in Ross's work is the use of created constraints (modes of the thing when rendered operative) as if they allow the reconstruction of the way, the path in which it was instituted at the first, or the time it took reach this or that condition, position or inter-relationship of these or those components. We have already considered some of his preconceived ideas, and misrenderings of elements involved.

Doubtless if the universe were created the way it goes on, if its construction could never be synthetic but had to be the construction through analytically conceivable elements of the first order, even if these could indeed occur without further miracle (Slusher, op.cit): it would be different both from the Bible and from what it is ! Creation and operation are by no means synonymous in their modes of action, as we know in numerous aspects, even of human endeavour. That is not a very productive line of thought, although it is a predicted and common one for this current, torrid period of history (II Peter 3:3-5 - see Chs. 9-10 infra). The scoffing uniformitarianism is in view, even when it has some reference to a first 'creation'. Indeed, that is the very meaning which some non-creationists casuistically deploy, as is verifiable from Bird's The Origin of Species Revisited (see pp. 315A-316A infra).

The view one has here adopted, abundantly verified, and constantly more verified, is that the scientifically determined age of the universe has so many different assumptions, discordant results for various hypotheses, suddenly varying insights, vast and challenging elements, philosophical pretensions, exposed or secret, varying from mere seizing of one of a series of possibilities to the implicit assumption that God was not at work and that we are trying to account for what is nevertheless called in many cases, 'creation' without Him... that the only realism for science per se is to say this: we do not know.

The history of thought on this subject seems largely to be one of the revelation of ignorance, and the demonstration of arrogance. It must in all straightforwardness be confessed that one finds it far easier to match all the evidence with a young earth than with an old one; but that the matter should really be one of great care - scientifically. We shall revert to this.

b) Biblical Limits

Biblically, the matter has been traced with some care in Chs. 2, 9 and 10 of this work, with results on occasion slightly different from the norms for the raging contestants; and indeed with some disregard for party-lines. What is entirely clear is this: relative to the age of creation, what can be tested of the Biblical text, by science, is never disauthenticated. What may be contradicted by philosophy, either when in the minds of scientists or of any others, normally does contradict it. But that is neither here nor there; philosophy always contradicts itself as well.

What we have however shown in this work, is this: if reason is consulted, and scientific method is followed, the Biblical position is characterisable thus. It alone is valid, and no logical process, in science or other fields, can or does embarrass it. That is its uniqueness; and it continues, as unruffled as truffles on ice, to have that situation over thousands of years, during which science (and that includes the last few decades) changes its ... opinion as if engaged in a flirtation. It is however not science or scientific method which is so severely embarrassed; it is merely the philosophic rapacities of reckless assumptions from which men, scientists or others, are rarely immune.

In particular, as we have shown in detail in Ch.s 1 and 2, organic evolutionary developments, both Biblically and in terms of scientific method, are flatly and multiply contradicted; while facts and scripture are solidly wedded. Biblically, we have found age allows some variation, but that the age of life on earth allows very little indeed; and this correlates considerably with other items of age.

Science then changes considerably and sometimes elementally; the Bible never has to do so, though it makes the most extraordinarily clear and compelling statements, eminently testable in many fields. Its consistency of record, and unanswerability is as a matter of simple record, unmet by ANY other body of knowledge, over history, whatsoever. That is, for the word of the necessarily sovereign God of creation, precisely what you would expect. It should not discourage human effort; but it should counsel human presumption, a near norm in the field.

c) Ancient Hybrids and Modern Mutations

What however of ancient times ? Before the present surge into numbers games with dating (what Professor Andrews calls at one point, as quoted elsewhere, 'the science of guessing'), what were some of the ancient approaches to Genesis 1 and its majestic declarations of the Almighty God ?

Ross treats some of these (op.cit.), and we shall give a little attention to this field, and its corollaries. We must realise of course that the Greeks had their bearing in education and influence on the thoughts of many scholars. The Greeks ? There were many... seers. Among them, the Milesian philosophers, hilariously universalising monists, monists in water, in air and the like; the Platonists with their movements towards idealism, even for a moment, towards some measure of creationism and degrees of startling variability, as in the Timaeus, where providence has... eyes; the neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, the Alexandrian phiosopher, with their universal hybrid schemes, universalising, allegorising, symbolising; the Jewish philosopher, Philo, whose God was 'unknown', who arranged for spiritually creative 'emanations' and whose thought here is quoted by Ross (pp. 16-18); the Aristotelians with their impersonal and protected God hidden away in contemplation from involvement in a universe where he/it acted as prime mover: ALL these had their effect.

Just as Darwin has had his effect, despite his evidentially barren contest for his general theory, so had these other and ancient philosophers in their time...

Naturally, there were some early church impacts. However even in those quoted by Ross, there is a tendency for the 'thousand years is as a day' approach to the days of Genesis 1, on the part of some; while the early church Bishop Ambrose from the same quotations, is clear in his Genesis 1 24-hour reference, simply and properly allowing the usage of 'day' in appropriate settings, for other purposes, as it is with us. In the thousand year approach, moreover, the time in view is co-ordinate with the life-spans of the first men Biblically addressed, and not of a disproportion wholly alien. Whatever philosophic or fanciful inputs may have affected some here, they did in such cases not wholly violate the sense of the record. This is so, even if at this point, some disregarded with the blinking of momentary little faith, or inadequate application, the clear evidence of the text. The issues, though of real interest, were less pointed than is now the case.

In fact, the case, as the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia points out (vol. 3, p. 302), is that the Alexandrian school, influenced by Philo, tended to disregard time, emphasising that God needed "no more than an instant for the creation of the world". Clement, it is noted, denies that "the world was created in time, since time came into existence with created things", a view closely followed by Augustine at this point, he notably emphasising the conception that "the world was made, not in time, but with time", in his City of God (p. 350, Ch. 11). This he deems to follow from his (very limited) definition of time, though at that, himself strangely ignoring his own definition's clear fulfilment during the processes of the days as they brought the paraphernalia of process into being. Such is the impact of philosophy, which had a major and notorious invasion in the case of Origen. A large insistence on the part of those so influenced is noted in Schaff, such that there was for this school, a conception of a "practically instantaneous" Creation.

This is rather different from the concept of vast ages... as is the "literal interpretation of six days as six periods of twenty-four hours, generally given in orthodox dogmatics from Luther on" (Schaff, loc. cit.) in much post-Reformation work. Indeed, to turn now to J.D. Davis of Princeton, in his famed 4th. Edition (rev.) Bible Dictionary, pp. 157-158, we find this statement relative to the historical emphasis following the Reformation: "During the next 300 years the narrative was understood to mean that God created the universe in one week of seven consecutive days of twenty-four hours each. At any rate, the works of the six days were more than six acts; God spake, to use a significant Biblical term, eight times (verses 3, 6, 9, 1, 14, 20, 24, 26)."

Accordingly, we find in the most scholarly 24 vol. work of Keil and Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament (1864-1868) p. 51, on Genesis:

But if the days of creation are regulated by the recurring interchange of light and darkness, they must be regarded not as periods of time of incalculable duration, or years of thousands of years, but as simple earthly days.

This was not only the first day of the world but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning.

Here not only is the creation of heaven and earth out of nothing strongly emphasized, but special stress is laid on the relative nothingness of weakness of the creature in comparison with God... In harmony with the unconditional supernaturalism... it is not surprising to find the six creative days of Genesis taken in the strict literal sense...

Let us now examine from ancient times, the case of the few Christian 'fathers' noted who so declined from the Jewish orthodoxy preceding Philo with his philosophy, as to step into the 'day as a thousand years' category.

That some so varied is not surprising. It is always a challenge to accept the concept that human birth comes in 9 months, a thought comes in an instant (though the brow be furrowed), a theory of great complexity hits the mental tarmac at times in a moment, that the 5000 were given bread not in a thousand year day, but in a few minutes, that Lazarus was raised from the dead in a cell, not a time capsule; and many have found it hard to see the simple power of God (cf. II Timothy 3:1,5), without which we would not have matter with which to have designs with which to become the fantastic triads we are. When mistaken ideas about evolution pressed on man to make the days of creation either witless pretences on which man's rest is to be premised, or ages of prodigious extent, in which various forces strove away and God demeaned himself, creatively to fool about with the violence, 'vanity' and 'corruption'... what then ?

Then you reach a world which is to assist as a grisly means in its own creation and development of life, instead - as in Romans 8 - of being the recipient of a method of judgment upon it. Then you have an utterly militant approach to the God who made us, and told us what He did. The pollution of penalty on this blaspheming model, appears rather as God's pure preference for instituting and developing life. This is both fearlessly and fecklessly contrary to the principles of Habakkuk 1:1-3, 2:2-4, 3:13-14, Micah 6:1-8, Amos 2:6-16, II Corinthians 8:9, 1 John 1:1-4, 4:7-8, Hebrews 13:8, Proverbs 12:10, 30:6, Romans 8, Jeremiah 7:8-10, Isaiah 11:4-10. Such a god is an idol (cf. pp. 179 ff. supra).

Then is the word of God despised, no more a problem... Then man contests it, pushes it back into His mouth, while enlarging his puny assault forces. Then the word of God is bypassed, the means of creation are equated with a mode of discipline and blasphemy is the pulpiteer. Toying with this scenario is unwise; trifling with time in such philosophic invasions of thought, to allow a different universe with a different scene, a different sin setting and consequence, this too is unwise. When the lava flows, it is best to avoid it, and move elsewhere. While it is hot, it is not helpful.

Now therefore the comparatively mild case of making a thousand years a day, to which we earlier referred, this is not by these means justified. This is not to do that; but it is utterly to differentiate it from the contemporary issues before us. In fact, at this time, as Professor Lubenow (Bones of Contention, esp. Ch. 16, and infra) for one well sums up as in his charts of fossils, and in an arena where Professor Oxnard (supra) has laid due stress, we are in no position to make time the optional matter that Ross would have it, if the Bible is to be followed; and this applies quite apart from the error he made on the topic of death. For homo sapiens remains, on current geological theory of the common type, go back millions of years; and despite Ross, human tracks of numerous kinds, some readily followed step by step (pp. 204-208 supra), go back to vast 'ages'.

The (relatively) trifling vanities of some writers who did not approach Genesis with sufficient contextual fidelity, is irrelevant to the efforts to divorce the text from the word of God and place it in the hands of the materialist receivers, enshrined in their palatial chronological halls, for purposes of their own. The word of God is not available for captivity, and there is no 'peace' in acting in proprietary, manner, as if to harass it, as if it were some Communist prisoner, into conformity to the Party line. And what is that line ? Mere confusion, and ignoring of vast evidences that will not conform to their concepts, while allowing philosophy to masquerade in its presuppositions as if it were the voice of evidence! They did it before; far more now do they repeat the ancient process. It profits nothing.

And what evidences are here ignored ? Evidences contrary to the delusive concepts: biological, geological, mathematical, astronomical, logical, methodological, in design, program, logic, epistemology, linguistics. psychology, morality, history. We can afford no counting of noses (inadequate as even Voltaire showed). We are constrained by the text, and what it may be shown to teach; and by adequate reason.

d) Wedding the Unmarriageable

There were ancient hybrids. There are also modern ones. Let us consider Ross's adventitious combination of creation with uniformitarian travesties of creative power... (They are different in kind, creation from maintenance work, and in the mind of the Creator, infinitely different in kind.) This unhallowed synthetic effort, used to 'date' materials, on the delusive principle that God would not make things appear 'old', is a classic of confusion.

There is no 'appearance' in the circumstance that God may wish to create elements or compounds to some extent derivable in certain processes one from another: direct. Can not even I use composite words, or simpler ones at any time and place, without having to 'create' the complex word every time ? Can not I use prepared steel; or make it at my expense and pleasure ? Can I not synthesise chemicals from elements, or use a natural compound, without there being thought of deception! What 'god' is this who is process-bound! Are we thinking of a projection of a physicist, or of the true God who made all ?

When you have the power, you use what you want, deem good, when you want - make a meal or order one. 'Appearance' may have nothing to do with it - simply preference. The very idea that God has to prepare elements beyond a certain atomic weight by stipulated methods is a perfect one, in one sense only: it is a perfect mix of effrontery and confusion.

As to 'theoretical' derivatives of starlight transmission time, when in fact God may have preferred (as we might at our own level, for any drama to be played, or tableau to be constructed ) to make the scene of a given kind for a given purpose - lit-up like a stage instantly or not: this is mere dalliance, like children telling their parents what to do. If things started thus and so, if the elements went through processes thus and so, if the light was placed thus and so, and the light sources were inter-related in this and that matter when  installed: if ... These datings are merely the parallel of much economic theory: if the model is right in its assumptions, then the mathematics may follow. But is it ? The case is just as it was in the case of Professor Andrews and radioactivity, it is the 'science' of guessing, the science of philosophy.

e) Ignorant Knowledgeability

Transmission times for light cannot therefore, except by purely arbitrary assumption, play any part in determining age. Not only are the creative means and methods separate from the means of maintenance (maintaining a book, in a general parallel, is rather a differing matter from writing one, and the times are most unpredictable for the former and thus for the comparison!); but the placement and phases of complexity of initial materials has all the benefit of being unknown to science.

Indeed, you simply don't know as to the creation

i) its initial dispersion, time of emplacement, or the initial mode of time measurement for that matter.

ii) its initial matter state: whether elements, syntheses or developmental phases, relative to analytical possibilities (*2), mixtures of components, advanced or primary, or indeed transmutative phases or stages unthought of - at will and selection (*3).

iii) its initial creative expansion in the "spreading out" of the heavens - "who stretches out heavens all alone" (as may be indicated by Isaiah 44:24, cf. 40:22, Zechariah 12:1 and Jeremiah 10:12 - "He has stretched out the heavens at His discretion", with scriptural parallels ... a concept stressed by Dr Humphreys).

iv) its initial velocity in various components and their initial irruptive and relative motion as the system was being formed.

v) changes in initial velocities during changes accompanying the energy, mass and space creations in all their phases in the creation.

vi) effectual data compression resulting from these or other changes, inputs, or interactions during creation's erection of processes.

vii) the relevant effects on any radiation where transit time assumed (on a presuppositional, uniformitarian, do-it-yourself basis) exceeds the actual post-institution time of the creation itself.

If you assume everything, you can prove anything; but we are talking of the real world, not of the marvels of imagination; of sober thought, not presumption this way or that. (Cf. pp. 244-245, Ch. 2 S6, 413, 421-422A infra.)

Assume God is a compulsive alchemist, and you go a long way. But that is a pathological assumption concerning deity, excluded as shown in Ch.1 (if anyone needs it to be shown...); and no basis for any scientific work.

In general: to argue from the present, the constituted processes we have, to the past, to the way they were constituted in creation - out of nothing (but not BY nothing) as we have shown to be the case; this is to become a script-writer for God. That is scarcely science, and appalling theology.
 
 

Some review of the excellent work of Professor Lubenow, Bones of Contention, can provide some parallel points here.

This writer provides interesting evidence of numbers of scientists who are by no means oblivious to some of the obvious matters of logical principle that have been considered above. Cosmology - frequently the inflammation of concepts and the raising of the temperature of remarks, in merely psychological assurance - is sometimes recognised by scientists for what it is.

Thus in Ch.18 of his work, Lubenow cites numbers of distinguished astronomical experts who with relatively rare and disarming candour, admit the philosophical presuppositions that dominate the conceptual apparatus ("cosmological") ... in which universe dates are.. what ? Are decreed ? demanded ? are dictated ? Ross's Creation and Time (1994) seems an excellent example of the power to decree dates, thus.

Lubenow moves from Sir Arthur Eddington who, in a context of the vast and extending universe, is cited: "There are no purely observational facts about the universe beyond", to Sir Bernard Lovell who on quasars states: "You cannot calculate the distance unless you know what cosmological model applies to the universe," to University of Washington cosmologist, Robert Wagner: "The time-scale is given by the theory of gravity. If we invoke some other theory of gravity, such as the Brans-Dicke theory, the time-scale would be much different", to John Eddy, "one of the world's leading solar astronomers" who is cited: "I suspect we could live with Bishop Ussher's value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence to conflict with that."

This author also dwells on a direct observational record from the sun-neutrino count in an earth-made neutrino trap, constructed to detect transmission of these minute particles from the sun to earth (op.cit. p. 208, incl. ref. to Nature, Nov. 29, 1990). They are far from the theoretically required count; so that Ulrich, of the University of California, Los Angeles, is cited to the effect that the discrepancy between the theoretical neutrino expectations and what is in fact observed is such as to challenge the theory of evolution, so that it cannot simply be relied on. (See  update in this and allied fields, 2008, in TMR Ch. 7, as marked, including the specialised hyperlinks found as you scroll down.)

On p. 211, Lubenow (op.cit.) notes the straightforward fact that in cosmology, distance does not imply a simple measure of time. That, if it were so, would presuppose that creation was not placed, as has been argued earlier. This review of some items of Lubenow's contribution is wholly parallel to the thrust of argument here made, and is an interesting supplement to Dr Slusher's monographs, and other works cited. It illustrates the fundamental principles which have been earlier argued on the basis of logical analysis.

As far as details on dating are concerned, it is of interest that longtime researcher, Dr Russell Humphreys, who has recently been presenting date-related theories with the advantage of predictions that were fulfilled (Creation Magazine, June-August, 1993), in terms of magnetism, noted in interview that about 90% of all the processes available for date measurement for the earth, indicated a young earth... His magnetic theory, concerning an hypothesised initial magnetism for the earth and the solar system, has been verified in its predictions by results obtained after the theory was propounded. Those checks were able to be performed on it, following measurements made from the spacecraft Voyager, for the field strength of Uranus and Neptune. The predictions in each case were astonishingly accurate.

As of course Professor Barnes pointed out, the difficulty in overcoming his (also predictively confirmed) concepts of earth's magnetism is the generation of the field in the first place. As he shows with great care in his Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, no method is known that can be validated; and the 10,000 year maximum age derived for the earth remains firm. Indeed this is supplemented now with great interest, by Humphreys' sensational predictive confirmation on his creationist hypothesis re magnetic fields.

Humphreys' additional work on quick-snap reversal of magnetic fields (postulated for the great flood), with its predictions again confirmed in observational data from thin lava slices, also fails to conform to evolutionary assumptions, but meets the young earth creationist model.

Such is likewise the case in the stimulated zone of ancient DNA preservation. In an article on Ancient DNA and the Young Earth, physician Dr Carl Wieland surveys the scene involved in laboratory analysis of DNA derived from insects trapped in amber, with assigned 'dates' of 25-120 million years. The question of researcher- contamination of specimens is met by subtle differences from modern types, in the DNA; and vigorous, laboratory-oriented criticism of the dating is cited. Thus Lindahl, 1993, Nature, 352:3813, presents a challenge to laboratory work to support contrary contention. The laboratory work has suggested a maximum age of 10,000 years, in view of observable breakdown procedures in DNA. Mention is made of gaseous diffusion expert Harold Hopfenberg at North Carolina University, and his presentation that oxygen could permeate amber 'within weeks', and the force of the preservation fact on the dating alignment becomes even stronger. (See Creation Technical Journal, 8 (1), 1994, pp. 7 ff..)

b) No Bargains in the Basement

Hugh Ross, for his part, sees fit to transmit allegations concerning the startling and long-maintained creationist presentation of Dr Robert Gentry. The notable and extensive specialisation of this worker in polonium (and uranium) halos is met with some indications that despite the decades of devoted, developmental work, and the years of public challenge he has made, Dr Gentry is simply wrong on rock strata. Somehow he failed to notice intrusive rocks that had inserted themselves into the 'pre-Cambrian bedrock' areas (see Gentry, Index), where virtually instantaneous creation seemed indicated.

It had prima facie seemed strange that Ross mentioned no response from Gentry to such a claim concerning his work, so that normal care appeared to warrant personal contact, when speech was possibly denied Gentry in Ross's 1992 book. Procedural caution looked well warranted. Did Gentry discover error in his work; did he accept the allegations made ?

Telephone conversation with Dr Gentry of Earth Science Associates, in Knoxville, Tennessee, has indicated on the contrary, that not one of the assertions is sustained; that he has confirmed his work and concepts in his book (3rd Edition 1992) - Creation's Tiny Mystery, and indeed, that he has engaged, with noted geologist Dr Andrew Snelling, in further field work in New Hampshire. This occurred in the Summer of 1994 and has led to the discovery of additional polonium halos, to add to the earlier list. Gentry since around 1965, moreover, has been able to check with advanced equipment for any sign of heightened uranium concentration near the polonium halos, yet experiments at once failed to show such a thing.

W.R. Bird gives some detail on Gentry's impact on some editors in journals in times past, in this topic area (pp. 404-405, Vol. 2 in Bird's exceedingly detailed work, The Origin of Species Revisited, one of many exhibiting the bankruptcy of Darwinianism). There too rocks resistant to the polonium derived particles, which register as halos or spreading impact marks, seem to resemble some relevant in the field of publicity.

Thus the present writer experienced much the same when in New Zealand, becoming the only representative registering dissent from the anti-Biblical 'resurrection' statement of the 1966 revisionist national Presbyterian Assembly. Though the formal dissent grounds supporting my Assembly move were some 17,000 words in length, NO newspaper would print the simple fact of the formal dissent, officially, publicly and in due order made and registered in that Assembly. However a N.Z. religious newspaper did, so breaking the news world's concerted imposition of the sanction of silence in N.Z. at that time, on the Minister who would not bow - to the works of men who would not bow to the word of God.

Partisan news suppression is not limited to 'other places'... and Gentry's intimations not only of his own interchanges with journals on matters to which they were sensitive, but also of the restrictions placed on one of his critics, made to appear quite different in turn from his intention, is of great value.

Before we proceed, however, with this phase of Gentry's work, it is of further interest to refer to the summary of Gentry's presentation in a Louisiana State University symposium, made by Professor Kazmann as convener. As quoted (pp. 61-62, op.cit.), Kazmann indicated a discrepancy relative to uranium 238 and lead 206 ratios appearing in the coalified wood which was taken from Colorado, and deemed to relate to Cretaceous, Jurassic or Triassic age level. Such 'ages' should imply a very low uranium-lead ratio, Kazmann summarised, yet in fact that ratio in the specimens was very high. If, then, isotopes could be used for dating, he wrote, then on this evidence presently accepted ages could be too high... by a factor of 10,000!

Reverting to the polonium 'basement rock', pre-Cambrian case, that stretches over continents: In Gentry's 3rd Edition of his Creation's Tiny Mystery, he gives in great detail the exposure of false and sometimes merely re-cycled claims, long before shown invalid. In cricket, persistence can be a virtue; in science, when the laboratory evidence is to the contrary, it can be obstruction.

To persist however with the extraordinarily elaborate laboratory work, and with the related hypotheses, in the face of unsustainable contrary conjecture, this can have the virtue of professional integrity and be commendable.

Dr Gentry in particular deals with the sort of hypothesis forwarded by Hugh Ross concerning the creation-day fiat testimony which he had for so long found attested in pre-Cambrian granites (pp. 204, 327-330, 331-338). He indicates, for example, that the hypothesis that the granite had been intruded upon by super-heated invasive rocks fails, because as experimental evidence show, re-crystallisation of granite produces rhyolite; and the halos are in granite, not rhyolite; just as they were, for that matter, characteristically free of fossiliferous material (op. cit., pp. 35, 65-66, 130-131, 153). Mixing of rocks then, under severe thermal intrusion conditions, says nothing of the issue maintained by Gentry: granite with its distinctive features is on the sites with which he is concerned. What is not on site, is the rhyolite re-crystallisation evidence, and despite years of challenge to produce granite by synthesis on rocks, the issue is unmet (op.cit., pp. 332, 314, 280). What is sighted, sited and assessed is in point.

This is the more interesting in view of the claim (videotaped, April 13, 1987) by a Geology Professor of the University of Tennessee that granite could be synthesised - in one week. Not in many years has this challenge been met, or claims confirmed! let alone in one week (give set-up time)!

Experiment merely confirms Gentry's claim to the integrity of the rock in view (both as to what experiment does, and does not show!). He indeed cites confirmatory words from specialists concerning the failure to issue plausible alternatives (op.cit. p. 143). In view of Gentry's claim to have examined around 100,000 radiohalos, "mainly from pre-Cambrian granites and pegmatites located in several continents", it is not without reason that he can claim attention in field and laboratory, to observation.

The persistence of the radiohalo effects in eminently diversified surroundings likewise renders difficult, endeavours to make local conditions paramount or determinative (op.cit., p. 299). Indeed, Gentry points out that the radioactive material and the granite are available; why not then reproduce what is found in nature, by the very means evolutionists (and their date-associates) hypothesise (op.cit. pp. 300-301) ? Yet neither experiment noted as challenge, is performed, whether in a week or after years of research!

Of interest because of its recency, in this area, is an E-Mail letter from Dr Gentry sent in January, 1995. In this, this specialist notes that:

i) Information on polonium halos in White Mountain, New Hampshire finds, was given first in the First International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pa, 1986.

ii) This was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 254, March 1989. It is reprinted in the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.

iii) Exact locations are a topic for material currently under preparation for publication.

iv) Occurrence of polonium halos is widespread in these granites at White Mountain.

v) Occurrence of polonium halos in granites "of whatever geological nomenclature" remains "unrefuted scientific evidence" for a "virtually instant creation of thee foundation rocks".

Citing an earlier letter of his, he adds data to the following effect:

vi) He has hundreds of samples from all round the world never seen by Wakefield (cited by Ross) - see point ix) infra.

vii) The one case visited with Wakefield was "definitely an example of primordial created granite rock".

viii) Wakefield's interpretation is based on assumptions of slow cooling which "are contradicted by laboratory experimental evidence." This shows that "granites melted in the laboratory never become solidified as granite again, even under conditions of cooling and high pressure".

ix) His results have been published "in the open scientific literature", partly in order to "give... an opportunity to refute those results in the same scientific journals if they" (viz. the readers) "could find something in error". As to this: "Decades have passed and my results stand unrefuted as far as the scientific journals of the world are concerned".

Results placed in journals of another category - not those where his contributions were made - have appeared; and this without laboratory corroboration, but rather the contrary.

This then is a most recent reply from Gentry, most of the substance of which is given in detail in the 1992 edition of his book; along with considerable data and exposition...

Gentry (op.cit. pp. 7, 135) is scarcely a novice in rock structure investigation, and for one surveying his work and statements in some detail, any thought of confusion of dikes and rhyolite with unadulterated granite in the masses of cases, appears an hypothesis of wind. Confusion of rhyolite with granite, however, although it might be one way in which to circumvent this element of Gentry's presentation, is not a laboratory confirmed mode of procedure for the case in hand. The two being different: assumptions which experiment continually confirms for the rock, cannot credibly be reversed for theoretical extravanganzas, where the case does experimentally conform to the notions in view. So moves science. The granite therefore remains rock-hard.

For further and later developments of enduring significance, see