The Continuing Saga of the Po Halos 'Mystery' By J. Richard Wakefield, Oct. 1988 This is a
The Continuing Saga of the Po Halos "Mystery"
By J. Richard Wakefield, Oct. 1988
This is a short article responding to Robert Gentry's second edition to his book
Creation's Tiny Mystery (Gentry 1988). I was initially hesitant to deal with
Gentry's response to my two published papers (Wakefield 1988a, 1988b) because I
thought the work would be able to stand on its own in spite of what Gentry wrote.
After reading his "RESPONSE TO WAKEFIELD'S REMARKS" on pages 325-327 I realized
that my effort does stand up quite well. However, there are statements which
Gentry made in his 17 point "response" which need to be clarified for the sake of
those interested in this issue.
This paper can be freely copied and distributed.
To begin with I think it proper to go through the three pages of his "response"
one bit at a time. I will not deal with his paranoia attitude in the first two
paragraphs, just the issue at hand.
Gentry claims that "Its [evidence against creation] success depends on hiding the
truth that evolution is held together by the uniformitarian principle. [p. 325]"
This is just not so. There is not one evolutionary scientist in the world who
would deny that Nature operates via natural laws. Note that he consistently
emphasizes the term "uniformitarian principle." Why? I think Gentry, and many
of his creationist colleagues, do not understand what is meant by the
uniformitarian principle. Brent Dalrymple has argued that we drop this term and
adopt another since it does seem to imply slow continuous change. But scientists
do not see the term as that, but that the universe was formed, and continues to
work via the physical laws, with no supernatural intervention. Thus, if a rock
in the field appears to be intrusive, then science MUST, by its very nature,
assume (yes assume) that there is an origin to these rocks which can be explained
through natural laws.
So then, one can only assume, again, that what Gentry is trying to imply is that
during his creation events no natural laws were in effect. Only the supernatural
was (does this mean total chaos? Maybe!). I think this can be a fairly accurate
view of Gentry's claim. But as many scientists have pointed out (eg Patterson),
the realm of the supernatural is undescribable, unobservable, and cannot be
tested. Thus it cannot have a place in science.
Now on with Gentry's "response". I did not have "a heyday in widely claiming
granite had been synthesized on television...". I was pointing out to Gentry,
and just a few other people I was in contact with (roughly 8) at the time that
this procedure was on a TVOntario (in collaboration with Laurentian University as
an undergraduate university credit) video program. I thought it might have some
Gentry stated immediately that "...synthesized on television, even sending a
letter to that effect to Frank Press, President of the National Academy of
Sciences." I looked up my April 3, 1987 letter to Dr. Press and I would hardly
count a quick comment in parenthesis that I had sent a complete letter of just
this to Press, which Gentry clearly implies. The main thrust of that letter, and
Gentry was sent a copy, was on the geology of the area.
Gentry goes on to claim that I have been proven wrong on the granite synthesis.
Gentry carefully obtained one of the samples which was in the old film clip shown
on that TVOntario series (I too tried to track them down, but came to a dead end
up here). Gentry self proclaims that the samples are not granite, but rhyolite.
On page 203 he explains what he thought about this artificially produced sample
"The texture and color of the rock from the laboratory experiment showed an
unmistakable similarity to the rhyolite. The audience [at the UT talk in 1987]
could plainly see that granite which is melted, and then slowly cooled under
modern laboratory conditions, produces a fine-grained rock almost identical to
rhyolite --the fine-grained rock resulting from the slow cooling of molten
granite deep in the earth."
My limited search for the same rock experiment did not find the sample Gentry
did, but what I did get sent to me by the people of Encyclopedia Britannica, who
produced the film clip, was a flyer explaining the clip foot by foot of film.
The experiment was part of a 20 minute film entitled "Why do we Still Have
Mountains?" I shall quote scene #48:
"48. Sequence: gages showing decrease in temperature; opening of capsule and
examination of sample --620'
Then the samples is cooled very slowly under the same high pressure. This
artificial rock resembles the rock we started with, but not exactly. We let this
sample cool for only one day. If we could have extended that cooling time for
hundreds or even thousands of years the resemblance to plutonic rock would be
Well, isn't that an interesting bit of information! So the temperature, of 800c,
and pressure, 48 tons/sq in, simulated the deep earth, but that is were the
similarity ends. The reason Gentry's sample looks like rhyolite, ie fine-
grained, is because in this lab they cooled the sample down in just one day!! I
doubt very much that a very large pluton of liquid rock would cool to a solid in
Gentry is wrong. He says it cooled very slowly. It did not, it was very fast.
As I stated in my papers it is the rate of cooling which determines the size of
the crystals which form from a melt. Fast cooling (on the order of years)
produces fine-grained rock. Conversely, slow cooling (on the order of hundreds
of thousands of years) produces large crystals. The only deviation from that is
when the melt is very rich in water and dissolved gasses, such as pegmatites are.
With a much higher content of water and gasses, the melt can produce very large
crystals (on the order of tons).
Gentry is confusing geological terminology. The term "granite" is not a
petrographic definition, it is a mineralogical definition. Rhyolite is a
granite, but one which reaches the surface. Again Gentry misunderstands what
rhyolite is. BY DEFINITION it is an EXTRUSIVE form of granite. There are
rhyolite tuffs, rhyolite flows, and rhyolite volcanic breccia. There are no
rhyolite plutons. He is talking a different language using these terms where
they do not belong.
(He does this many other times as well. For example, his use of the term
"singularity" as supernatural events is wrong. Singularities are the point mass
at the center of a black hole. He is using this term "singularity" to give his
clearly supernatural events an air of scientific credibility).
There are other extrusive flows such as trachyte (extrusive syenite), dacite
(extrusive tonalite), andesite (extrusive diorite), and basalt (extrusive gabbro)
[Mason, 1958, p.96].
Gentry claims that the glassy rocks are an extrusive equivalent of rhyolite.
Obsidian, his glassy rock, is a petrographic term, not a mineralogical term. It
can range in composition from rhyolitic to dacitic (and basaltic in some flows)
[Gilluly, et al, 1968, pp. 611-614].
Let me now address each of Gentry's 17 "responses". I will quote, completely,
each of these and my reply.
"(1) Claims (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 that they
were from a pegmatite."
Not so. The Silver Crater, Fission, and Wolsendorf deposits are not pegmatites.
They are hydrothermal deposits. Again he is using an incorrect term. Pegmatite
is used for igneous intrusions of very large crystal size. Some are granitic,
some are syenitic, and some are more mafic. The Faraday Mine is a granite
pegmatite, but not these other three. The Fission mine fluorite/calcite/apatite
vein is not even course grained, with the exception of some accessory minerals
like hornblende and biotite. I also quoted him in my papers that he did obtain
samples from pegmatites (and noted that pegmatites are intrusive). All I said
on page 18 (C/E) and again page 165 (JGE) that the Silver Crater and Fission
mines were not granites. Gentry here is wrong. They are NOT pegmatites either -
-they are calcite vein-dikes.
"(2) Implies (C/E 17-21, 23; JGE 4-7) that certain 'intrusive,' crystalline rocks
discount a creation origin for those rocks, but the fact is, my creation model
(pp. 133, 185) includes these among the rock types that were created."
Pages 133 and 185 do not provide any evidence that these rocks are created
primordial rocks from Day One of creation week. They are just arbitrarily
included. In his book, Gentry mentions this water, and the appearance of dry
land, as described in Genesis. This is not scientific, this is Biblical. Where
is his empirical evidence for all this? The occurrence of Po halos do not
support all of this.
"(3) Claims (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 he fails
to understand this is perfectly in harmony with my creation model (pp. 133, 184),
which envisions a continual series of geologically oriented, creative events
throughout the 24-hour period of Day 1 (and possibly Day 3 as well)."
Again, where is his evidence for a 24 hour Day One? This is Biblical, not
science. Besides he mentions on page 34 that the presence of Po halos means the
creation in the first three minutes of Day One. There is nothing here that says
any other interval. When in Bancroft during November 1987, Gentry mentioned to
Hans Meyn and I that now it could be the last three minutes of Day One. What
about the last three minutes of yesterday! Where is the evidence that it is now
the last three minutes of any day at all?
As I specify in my articles, but Gentry fails to mention here, that his Po halos
pegmatites show definite cross-cutting relationships, but the Po halos show a
three minute creation time, according to Gentry.
"(4) Claims (C/E 18; JGE 11) that he had to 'explain' regional metamorphism to me
--a patronizing inaccuracy-- but neglects to say that metamorphism is included in
my creation model in this book (pp. 184-185)"
If Gentry had of written to me instead of calling me at inconvenient times and
places (in the last of our conversations he called me at work demanding page
numbers from references which were at home!!) there would be no inconsistencies
between his version of what happened and mine. Here Gentry has no one to blame
but himself. I wrote several, long, letters to him, especially after our
conversations on the phone, but he never once wrote back to me. I took notes
during all our conversations (thanks K. Fezer for the advice!!). This item of
dispute took place April 12, 1987. I did indeed have to explain to Gentry what
regional metamorphism was, and he then claimed it was part of his "model". I
have it in my notes.
Again, stating something in his book, with no supporting evidence, does not make
it true or scientific. Po halos in pegmatites do not support metamorphism, or
apparent metamorphism, is part of the creation events.
"(5) Quotes an evolutionary geologist as an authority on how certain rocks formed
when, in fact, excerpts from the quote (C/E 18; JGE 5) reveal the geologist is
only speculating: 'The author believes that...has..been largely derived...';'The
author feels that the deposit is therefore best classed as...';'Its mode of
origin is in dispute.'"
I was not quoting Hewitt as authority. I used his description in his 1957
published paper, noting that Hewitt was well versed on the geology of the
Grenville since he spent his entire carrier studying that geology. It is true at
that time Hewitt was not sure of the origin of the calcite. But Gentry has
failed to mention Louis Moyd's Mineralogical Record paper (Moyd 1988), sent to
him by Moyd, where he discusses the evidence for replacement in the various vein-
dikes. Moyd's evidence spells out the hydrothermal origin for the calcite, and
the replacement of the calcite by accessory minerals as I stated in my articles
(starting with the words "Recently a consensus..." right after my Hewitt quote).
This evidence includes calcite inside the biotite. And the accessory minerals
(biotite, feldspar, nepheline, hornblende) are always in relation to the
surrounding wall-rock, where these minerals were derived, and transported from.
Please let us not get confused here. At both the Fission and Silver Crater Mines
the Po halo biotite shows definite replacement characteristics, with pieces of
calcite inside perfectly formed, very large (greater than 6 cm), crystals of
"(6) Implies (C/E 19; JGE 7) that many of my mica samples have undergone
metamorphism, but neglects to say he has never seen any of my hundreds of
specimens. And for the record, the few I have from Bancroft are not
metamorphosed. [italics his]"
True I have not seen Gentry's specific samples. I don't need to to know if they
have been altered by some metamorphism. I can look at the geology of the
locations were they came from. It is incorrect for Gentry to say Bancroft
samples are not metamorphosed. The Faraday pegmatite is a complex unzoned type,
and thus sheering and partial remelting have taken place altering the pegmatite.
The biotite itself may not look altered, but the rock it came from was. The
Silver Crater Mine is different. The biotite is a result of metamorphism
remobalizing minerals in the wall-rock to replace the calcite, as described by
"(7) Wrongly claims (C/E 25; JGE 9) my book has an error on the rate of lava
cooling. Also claims (JGE 11) that I equate rhyolite with granite, which is the
opposite of the truth (pp.130-131 of this book)"
I did not say he was wrong, but was contradictory on the rate of lava cooling (as
already shown above). In his first edition he state on page 130 that rocks can
cool "over a period of a few years". This is fast, not slow as he claimed.
Obsidian is even faster, more closer to instantaneous in the case of pumice.
Slow cooling is very much longer, like hundreds of thousands, or even millions of
Where on page 11 (171) do I make that claim? I can't find it. I know Gentry
says granite and rhyolite are different (both plutons, one of supernatural origin
and one of natural origin respectively), but geologists know that they are the
same. As stated above, Gentry does not seem to understand that rhyolite is an
extrusive form of granite --by definition!
Number (8) deals with Eichelberger's interpretation of granite formation from
published articles and a private letter sent to me. Gentry complains that
Eichelberger did not respond to a letter Gentry sent asking if this is so.
Seemingly implying that I made this up.
"(9) Asks (C/E 22;JGE 10) why I chose the three-minute half-life of Po-218 as the
measure of time for creation when this has been explained numerous times in my
reports and in the early part of this book (pp.23-37)"
I see no mathematical calculations deriving this number in any page of his book.
Let's see some math! Also, on page 329 he quotes himself from his UT
presentation by saying "The view of the creation model, which I have proposed, is
that there were accelerated periods of radioactive decay." One of these periods
was Day 1. Thus Po would not have had a halflife of 3 minutes on day one. So
how could he use a 3 minute halflife for a creation time when he admits that such
a rate would be much faster?
"(10) Shows (C/E 29) a picture of a road cut and insinuates that the exposed
rocks could only have formed by evolutionary processes, even though the rocks
shown are all included in the creation model in this book (pp.133-134)"
Gentry does not mention here that the road cut in question he visited with Hans
Meyn, Walter Brown, and myself in November 1987. And that he was informed then,
as well as in my papers, that this road cut was of the Faraday Gabbro definitely
intruding the marble formation. The gabbro, in turn, was intruded by the Po halo
pegmatites just down the road at the Faraday Mine.
The crosscutting relationship and the contact metamorphic alteration from the
gabbro on the marble (an alteration of six feet or more was quite visible, as
shown to us all by Meyn) is evidence for intrusion. This has nothing to do with
the "evolutionary process". The marble is physically cut by the gabbro. But how
did that happen? Through describable natural processes or through a supernatural
event? I guess God created marble, with sedimentary features, to look like it
came from limestone just like other known marbles are from the Proterozoic.
"(11) Uses (C/E 22; JGE 8) the term 'metasedimentary,' 'metavolcanics,' and
'metamorphosed intrusive gneiss complex' in an evolutionary context; this is a
futile attempt to deny a creation origin of Canadian Precambrian rocks. In a
further effort to deny creation he insinuates these rocks contain fossils, first
by parenthetically mentioning (C/E 22) 'fossil soil' --a true red herring for
which he provides no supporting evidence-- 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. Wakefield knows of a
report which questions their authenticity [H.J. Hofmann, 'Precambrian Fossils,
Pseudofossils, and Problematica in Canada' Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin
189, 30-34 (1971)], but does not mention it. And when discussing my visit to
Bancroft in late 1987, he finally is forced to admit (C/E 28) that his
'stromatolites' do not contain any organic matter that authentic stromatolites
Ah! We finally reach the meaty part of his arguments against me. The
metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the Grenville are NOT used in an
evolutionary sense. It is a fact that the low- to medium-grade metamorphic
sedimentary rocks here contain in many places (especially in the areas south of
Bancroft) definite sedimentary features like bedding planes, cobbles, and clasts
(see Hewitt, 1968, pp.3,8-12,28,36; Laakso, 1968, pp.8,10-12,17; Shaw and Hewitt,
1962, pp.5-9,32-37,38; Wolff, 1982, pp.11-28; Moore and Morton, 1986, pp.27-30,
35-39; Easton, 1986, p.141; Bartlett and Moore, 1983; Bartlett, Moore, and
Murrary, 1982 for some examples). The metavolcanic rocks show structures like
algomerates, pillow lavas, pyroclastics, and even bombs (see same list of
references). With any luck all of you will get a chance to see this when I make
my video sometime this fall or next spring.
As for the fossils stromatolites. Note how Gentry makes them appear that they
are my, and only my, invention. I was not aware of that publication at the time
I submitted my paper. That's too bad because I would have indeed included it.
Let me quote this so-called skeptic of stromatolites.
"In 1931 Osborne reported on some structures from the Grenville at L'Amable near
Bancroft Ontario, which he compared to stromatolites, but which he interpreted as
probably not biogenic. ... The structures occur in marble of the Dungannon
Formation (Mayo Group) of Hewitt and James (1956, pp.20-24). The unit is part of
the broad category generally referred to as "Hastings-type metasediments". At
L'Amable the outcrop belt tends easterly and comprises rocks of a lower grade of
metamorphism (amphibolite facies) than the gneissic and granitized rocks 2 miles
to the north; relict bedding is well preserved in many of the exposures. ...
A reconsideration of the evidence for a stromatolite hypothesis is in order. The
gross morphology, internal structure, distribution pattern, marker laminae, and
bulk lithology are very much like a great many stromatolite occurrences in
undeformed Proterozoic carbonate sequences. What distinguishes those at L'Amable
is the coarse grain size, the non-regularity and large spacing of the darker
laminae, and the deformed (squeezed) nature, all of which could be attributed to
the effects of high-grade metamorphism. The notion that a relatively little
deformed remnant of marble should be preserved in a more severely squeezed,
plastically deformed belt need not invalidate the stromatolite interpretation,...
In addition, there are abundant outcrops showing well-preserved primary bedding
(Hewitt and James, 1956, pp.19,21), so it is possible to have a favourably
situated block containing remnants of primary sedimentary features. ...
Although a stromatolite origin for the original structures at L'Amable is
reasonable, it is not considered proven."
Hofmann is showing true scientific skepticism here. But he certainly is not as
negative as Gentry makes him appear. Also we must not get confused here.
Hofmann is describing only one stromatolite occurrence, the one at L'Amable (the
same ones the four of us look at in 1987). There are many other locations, most
in the much less deformed areas south of Bancroft. The stromatolites from
Belmont Lake island, the photo of which was in JGE, p.169, are undeniable
stromatolites. The L'Amable ones, and this was pointed out to Gentry at the
time, are not as good due to the higher metamorphic grade of the area.
Gentry failed to mention that Mike Easton, of the OGS who took me around to see
some of these sites) had sent him many references describing the evidence of
their biogenic origin. Besides, the photos should speak for themselves, that is
why I included them!
Gentry also failed to mention that Hans Meyn sent Gentry a copy of the map I did
reference in my papers (Bartlett and DeKemp, 1987), showing the locations of
occurrences of stromatolites. What does this publication say? LOTS!!
"Biosedimentary structures preserved in the rocks of the map area and other parts
of the Central Metasedimentary Belt [of which the Supergroup is part of] are
Stromatolites in the Burleigh Falls-Bancroft-Madoc area comprise five main types,
distinguished by variations in morphology. In ascending order of morphologic
complexity these are: (1) algal laminites (mats); (2) domal stromatolites; (3)
columnar stromatolites; (4)conophyton forms; and (5) jacutonphyton forms. ...
In general, mid-amphibolite facies recrystalization is not, without moderate to
strong deformation, sufficient to prohibit recognition of stromatolitic
The ubiquity of stromatolites in the map area provides well constrained evidence
that the prevailing depositional setting consists of one or more relatively
extensive carbonate plateforms."
They note that the setting for these stromatolites in dolomitic marble would
indicate a "shallow marine environment." They note that some of the sedimentary
rocks show turbidite series. Remember, that the pegmatites, which contain the Po
halos, are structurally younger than these depositional rocks.
Gentry is quite wrong that stromatolites "always exhibit" organic matter. All
Precambrian stromatolites contain no organic matter. For that matter NO fossil
of any kind, except for very recent ones, contains biogenic material! All
fossils are rock impressions. With this same logic a fossil dinosaur bone was
not biogenic in origin! One recognizes fossils by their structure in the rock.
In the case of the five types of stromatolites found, and described in several
OGS publications by field geologists, they are inferred by comparison to
existing, living, stromatolites. However, Hofmann does note that the dark rings
contain graphite (what's left of the organic material???).
It must be emphasized here that stromatolite fossils differ slightly from other
fossils because it is not the actual organisms which are preserved as rock, it is
the structures of detritus these organisms form into their mounds which are
preserved. However, this does not detract from the inference derived by
comparison with living versions.
And what of the "red herring" of a fossil soil reference? Oh, I'm sorry it was
so important to him or I would have given one reference [Robertson, J.A. (1968)
"Geology of Township 149 and 150" Ontario Department of Mines Report 57, page 19
There is no doubt in my mind that Gentry is making it appear that I have invented
the stromatolites. This he knows is not true. Stromatolite occurrences are
described from many locations in the south Bancroft area, and more are being
found in other areas throughout the Grenville Supergroup (see Easton and DeKemp,
1987, p.220; Moore and Morton, 1986, p.30,31; Easton, 1986, p.141; Bright, 1984)
"(12) Repeatedly wishes (C/E 20; JGE 8) to establish an age sequence for
Precambrian rocks, but fails to say that all his radiometric dates are based in
the fallacious uniformitarian principle."
There's that dirty word again! That clear anti-science inference that Nature
did not behave through natural laws. I must clearly emphasize that the
structural relationship of the Canadian Shield is NOT based on the isotopic dates
of the rocks. It is based on field relationships, which I clearly stated in my
papers. It must be noted, as support, that the isotopic dates of the rocks of
the Shield do indeed coincide with the structural geological relationships. I
included the dates of the mines not for Gentry, but for geologists reading the
"(13) Wrongly associates (C/E 21; JGE 7) betafite with po halos not realizing
that (i) betafite like all U minerals produces a U halo, not a Po halo, and (ii)
x-ray mass analysis show significant amounts of U in U-halo centers, but not in
At the moment I have no dispute with Gentry's observation of what is in the
centers of which halos --for now that is. However, as I pointed out, the Po
halos are found in the Silver Crater Mine, so is the betafite. In fact, for that
matter every site located so far (by my self and Kurt Wise) Po halos are found in
high uranium rich rocks. Coincidence? I think not. I have just made several
trips to the underground workings of the Silver Crater Mine, mapping the
locations of biotite and betafite. I will soon be looking for halos --Po halos--
and I suspect I'll find a very close association between Po halos and the
proximity of betafite. I predict that in areas of no betafite in parts of the
calcite pod should not have Po-halos in the biotite. Time will tell.
Besides on page 184 of his book, Gentry stated that the U and the fluids required
were not present in his Po "granites". So far that has not been the case. Also
Larry Collins, and Gentry is now well aware, has evidence of much fluid migration
(see upcoming issue of C/E).
"(14) Implies (JGE 3) that former curator Louis Moyd made detrimental remarks
about my understanding of certain rocks, but my conversation with Louis in
December 1987 revealed this is untrue."
Again, contradictory reports due to phone calls, and not corresponding. On the
20th of Feb 1987 Moyd told me he informed Gentry, sometime around 1971 when
Gentry visited the National Museum in Ottawa, that he were looking in rocks far
too young for extinct superheavy elements. He recommended to Gentry that he look
in Archean rock, not late Proterozoic. Rereading my writing I can see I was not
as clear on this point as I could have been.
Now, I have no idea what the conversation between Gentry and Moyd was
specifically about. I had corresponded and talked with Moyd several times after
Gentry's conversation with Moyd, and Moyd made no comment about what I might have
misstated. In fact, Moyd was send a pre-publication version for approval, and
his reply said nothing about this, and he infact praised the paper. So If I had
in fact written that Moyd told Gentry something which was not true, and
especially since Gentry had talked to Moyd about it, I'm sure Moyd would have
said something to me about the error. But he did not.
"(15) Complains (JGE 3) of uncertainty on where Po-halos are found when both my
reports and my book emphasize their worldwide occurrence in granitic and
pegmatitic micas. Geological museum have thousands of such specimens from well-
Many people have stated that Gentry should have listed his halo locations with
each photograph (Kurt Wise is presently compiling such a list for publication in
CRSQ). And that exact locations are important for replication. Having samples
in museums is no good. What museum numbers does Gentry have for his specimens?
Why did he not include the ID numbers with each photo?
"World-wide" tells us nothing. We need to know exact locations so that
similarities in the geology can be compared. By not identifying specific
locations he is forcing people to reinvent what he has done.
In (16) he disagrees that he had disregarded what people like Dalrymple have told
Gentry that every granite formation in the world can be show to be intrusive into
pre-existing rock. I have two letters from people who said essentially the same
thing, that Gentry sluffed off the information when they told it to him. My
files are open to anyone who wishes to browse.
"(17) Imagines (C/E 19, 20, 25-27; JGE 7, 10) that geology can explain large
crystal sizes in pegmatites when the truth is that geologist cannot even
synthesize a hand-sized crystal of the commonly occurring biotite, much less
those mica crystals that weight over 100 tones (which at the UT forum I noted
were clear evidence of creation)."
Ah, his old ace-in-the-hole trick again. We have been through this many, many
times. And there is no point in going over it again. Gentry is again asking
geologists to produce something which would take lifetimes. Note again, that he
is implying I'm making all this up as I go along.
That is the end of his 17 point "response". What I found more informative than
what he said, was what he did not say!
He avoided tell us at what grain size he would consider a rock created or
natural. What is the size, and how did he come to that conclusion? What
calculations can he provide showing the dividing line?
Noted absent from his "response" are porphories. I have a nice trachyte porphory
with perfectly formed large (1 cm across) K-feldspar crystals. The trachyte
ground mass is very fine grained. I also have a diabase porphory with nice
large rounded feldspar crystals. The TVO series (which I managed to copy and
send to him) shows examples of porphories on the Igneous Rocks program. No
explanation was in his book, nor in his "response" for these common igneous rocks
which I described in my papers. The large crystals would make them created, but
the fine grained, and the fact that the trachyte is a volcanic flow, would seem
to indicate a natural origin. Which is it?
Also absent from his second edition were xenoliths, especially those in the
Faraday pegmatite. In this new edition, Gentry discusses visiting a Cretaceous
aged granite pluton in California [p. 329] which intrudes fossiliferous rocks.
I suspect this also contains xenoliths. Gentry does not give the name of the
formation --typical. Which granite was it? He states he talked with some
geologists out there about the formation, but fails to give their names, --
typical. Who were these geologists he talked with? I want to check this
On page 329 Gentry writes that he can explain the contact metamorphic alteration
in these sedimentary rocks. That the pluton could have intruded the surrounding
country rock in the solid state, having been created prior, but later moved
during the flood. The contact alteration, he maintains, is a result of "...the
long-lasting effect of all the forces that accompanied flood...". There is the
Biblical reference again! No supporting evidence of the flood is provides --it
is just "a given".
If a large solid pluton had risen from below, it should have been stressed and
fractured in the direction of movement. Also prominent slickensides and/or drag
folds should be visible where it rubbed past the country rock. The country rock
would have a particular form as well. Twisted up and concentrically fractured.
If there are xenoliths in this pluton, Gentry's argument is out the window.
Since xenoliths are common items in plutons, I suspect they exist here too. But
we can only find out if he discloses the name of the pluton and these geologists
he talk with!!!
The last page of the "response" consists of much twisted logic, and grasping for
straws. He claims that I left out the other items Gentry uses, such as the
coalified wood, and He & Pb retention is granites, not because I did not have the
room in my articles, as I stated, but because I can't answer them!
If I had the time to research the other items I "deliberately omitted" and write
a whole book, I would have. As it stands, the articles are complete with regard
to the geology of Precambrian rocks containing Po halos. I'm sure others will
take on his other topics, if they wish to waist their time. Leaving this out was
a matter of time and space, not that I can't answer them. That is twisted logic.
Gentry, again, infers I made up the geology in my papers "iv) if
his interpretation of field geology is based on the fallacious
uniformitarian principle, then how could he possibly conclude
that the evidence for creation is actually wrong?"
It is not my interpretation of field geology. He knows damn well
I'm not a geologist, but I read the material written by those who
are. It is somewhat deceptive making me out as if I'm making
this all up. He knows damn well that is not true! I listed
enough references by the field researchers for that very reason.
Gentry finally accuses me of agreeing with the creation "model"
because I used if...then... statement at the end of my papers.
There is no doubt he misunderstands my final statements. Just as
he made an if...then... statement over the artificial synthesis
of granite, I too was making an if...then... statement. This is
common to show the consequences of a position which does not make
sense. In no way is it an admission by me, or others who use
if...then... statements, that they are admitting to anything.
His logic here is faulty. I do not in any way concede to his
type of creation --one which is totally bazaar. It does not make
sense scientifically, nor theologically. The rest of us are
content with a God who uses physical laws --the principle of
uniformity if you like-- to make His creation. Gentry makes the
Creator out to be some crackpot who does not know what in hell He
was doing, in total confusion and disarray. I do not admit to
created rocks, He has totally misunderstood me here.
The last two paragraphs contain gross errors.
"Wakefield's characterization of the oldest rocks is based on his use of spurious
radioactive dates for those rocks" Absolutely not true!!! Again, it is based on
field relationships. I only quickly mentioned those dates for geologists reading
"In my creation model the rocks at Bancroft are part of the oldest rocks because
they are part of those created on Day 1 of creation week." As I pointed out in
my papers, and had a full page sketch in JGE, the Grenville Supergroup occupies
the LAST in a very complex succession of rocks as one moves northward into the
Archean aged Superior Province. Again, this is based on field relationships, but
highly supported by isotopic data.
Lastly, it is incredible that even though Wakefield admits[sic] the possibility
of rocks being "instantly created," his prejudice against creation is so strong
that he claims this would have 'no bearing on the origin' of the earth. Again, I
say: Incredible!" Other than the fact I do not admit to instant creation (in
Gentry's words), I made that claim because since Po halos are found in
pegmatites, which definitely crosscut other rocks, then all Gentry can claim is
that the pegmatite was created in three minutes, but he cannot extrapolate that
to include the rocks these pegmatites intrude. He admitted to that while
standing at the open pit of the Faraday Mine when he said that they were created
in the last three minutes of Day 1. Thus all the intruded rocks are arbitrarily
created in the 24 hours of Day 1, which he has absolutely no scientific evidence
for. It is strictly Biblical.
"The problem is that many geologists are the victims of their own self-deceptions
--their own unjustified acceptance of the uniformity as the basis for
interpreting the past." If one replaces "geologists" with "creationists" and
"uniformity" with "the Bible" I think the statement would carry far more truth.
He ends this "response" with: "The continuing efforts of confirmed evolutionists
to 'cover up' this fact is rapidly hastening the day when evolution's Watergate
becomes the focus of world attention."
What is very interesting about this whole thing was that Gentry
had been invited to reply, in the very journals I published in,
to my papers. But for some reason he finds this "unacceptable".
Also, Gentry has pulled out of a joint paper with Gregg Wilkerson in an upcoming
issue of Origins Research. Gregg's paper will go ahead anyway.
In conclusion, I think Gentry has failed to make his case. He
omitted much of what I asked of him. He provided nothing new in
the way of evidence to support his claims. In short I think
readers of both our papers will think carefully about his
position. He has erroneously pasted me as the inventor of this
geological data, when my papers clearly cite the experts in the
field. Wise, Wilkerson, and Collins will nicely put the final
touches on this case.
It might appear to many people that quite an animosity has
developed between Gentry and myself. This was not my initial
intent. My first letters to him were quite friendly (I will
produce my files anytime anyone asks), but with our phone
conversations and his attitude towards the data I was presenting
him with, I quickly lost respect for the man. Any reflection of
that in my papers, I must apologize for --not to Gentry, but to
the rest of you.
Bartlett, J.R. and DeKemp, E.A. (1987) LITHOFACIES, STROMATOLITE LOCALITIES,
LETALIC MINERAL OCCURENCES, AND GEOCHEMICAL ANAMALIES ASSOCIATED WITH CARBONATE
METASEDIMENTS OF THE BURLIEGH FALLS-BANCROFT-MADOC AREA, SOUTHERN ONTARIO,
Ontario Geological Survey, Map P.3079, Geological Series-Preliminary Map scale
1:126,720, Geology 1981, 1982, 1985.
Bartlett, J.R., and Moore, J.M. Jr. (1983) PRECAMBRIAN GEOLOGY OF MARMORA
TOWNSHIP, HASTINGS COUNTY, Ontario Geological Survey, Map P.2612 and 2613.
Bartlett, J.R., Moore, J.M. Jr., and Murry, M.J. (1982) PRECAMBRIAN GEOLOGY OF
BELMONT AND SOUTHERN METHUEN TOWNSHIOS, SOUTHERN ONTARIO, Ontario Geological
Survey, Map P.2488.
Bright, E.G. (1985) PRECAMBRIAN GEOLOGY OF THE MELLON LAKE AREA, HASTINGS, LENNOX
AND ADDINGTON, AND FRONTENAC COUNTIES, Ontario Geological Survey, Geological
Series Preliminary Map P.2648.
Easton, R.M. (1986) "Paleoenvironment and facies of the Apsley Formation,
Peterborough County", in SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK AND OTHER ACTIVITIES, 1986,
Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 132, pp.141-151.
Easton, R.M and DeKemp, E.A. (1987) "Darling Area, Lanark and Renfrew Counties"
in SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK AND OTHER ACTIVITIES, 1987, Ontario Geological Survey,
Miscellaneous Paper 137, pp.220-228
Encyclopedia Britannica Educational Corportation (1967) "Why Do We Still Have
Mountains?" guide to a 16mm Sound Film, 20 minutes, AGI-EBE Basic Earth Science
Gentry, R.V. (1986) CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville,
Gentry, R.V. (1988) CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY, second edition, Earth Science
Associates, Knoxville, TN.
Gilluly, J. et al (19 ) PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, third edition.
Hewitt, D.F. (1968) GEOLOGY OF MADOC TOWNSHIP, Ontario Department of Mines,
Geological Report 73, 45p. Accompanied by Map 2154, scale 1 inch to 1/2 mile.
Hofmann, H.J. (1971) PRECAMBRIAN FOSSILS, PSEUDOFOSSILS, AND PROBLEMATICA IN
CANADA, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 189, Department of Energy, Mines
and Resourse, Canada. See pp.30-34, 136-139.
Laakso, R.K. (1968) GEOLOGY OF LAKE TOWNSHIP, Ontario Department of Mines,
Geological Report 54, 36p. Accompanied by Map 2106, scale 1 inch to 1/2 mile.
Mason, B. (1958) PRINCIPLES OF GEOCHEMISTRY.
Moore Jr., J.M., and Morton, R.L. (1986) GEOLOGY OF THE MARBLE LAKE AREA,
COUNTIES OF FRONTENAC, AND LENNOX AND ADDINGTON, Ontario Geological Survey Report
238, 63p. Accompanied by Map 2499, scale 1:31,680.
MOYD, L. (1988)
Wakefield, J.R. (1988a) "Gentry's Tiny Mystery --Unsupported by Geology",
CREATION/EVOLUTION JOURNAL, Issue XXII, v.8, no.1, Buffalo, New York, pp.13-33.
Wakefield, J.R. (1988b) "The Geology of Gentry's 'Tiny Mystery'", JOURNAL OF
GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, v. 36, no. 3, pp.161-175.
Wolff, J.M. (1982) GEOLOGY OF THE KALADAR AREA, FRONTENAC, AND LENNOX AND
ADDINGTON COUNTIES, Ontario Geological Survey Report 215, 94p. Accompanied by Map
2432, scale 1:31,680.
Shaw, D.M. and Hewitt, D.F. (1962) CHANDOS TOWNSHIP AND WOLLASTON TOWNSHIP,
Ontario Department of Mines, Geological Report No. 11, 55p. Accompanied by Maps
2019 and 2020, scale 1 inch to 1/2 mile.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank