RE: [asa] How rocks were formed

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Sun Sep 17 2006 - 23:34:19 EDT

Just wanted to say, I appreciate Burgy posting and others commenting on
these AIG "updates", painful as it may be for those who know better to keep
dealing with the same issues.
Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Charles Carrigan
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] How rocks were formed

Comments below.
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geology
Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
"To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns the
valley or the mountain:
but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a
former world,
the mossy covering which obstructs his view,
and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,
is no less than a serious subject of regret."
          - James Hutton

>>> "" <> 9/16/2006 2:29 PM >>>

From AIG this week -- do your science with Genesis!
Q: Doesn’t granite take millions of years to form?
A: According to evolutionary geologists, granite is made of a number
of compounds that were mixed together under extreme heat. Supposedly
they rose slowly to the earth’s crust, and then cooled over thousands
of years to form the granites we see today.

However, evolutionary geologists have discovered something. Some of
the crystals found in granites near the earth’s surface will not
withstand temperatures over 800 Celsius for more than 50 years
without being destroyed. This is a big problem for these scientists
and their previous theories about the origin of granite.

The idea that blobs of molten rock rose slowly through the crust and
cooled for eons of time is now in question. Evolutionary geologists
are now changing their ideas and are starting to look to more
catastrophic events to explain the origin of rocks, like granites.
Wow talk about simplistic and ridiculous. Impossible to tell what they are
really talking about here, but I'll take a guess. After all, their claims
usually have a small hint of truth that is then corrupted to suit their
It is true that many minerals found in granites near the Earth's surface are
not stable at magmatic temperature. These minerals are secondary,
alteration minerals that are produced by altering the original, primary,
magmatic minerals formed directly from the melt. These alterations take
place because the conditions of formation (i.e., conditions in the hot magma
chamber) are not the same as the conditions at the surface of the Earth
where the rocks are now found. Pressure and temperature are both much
lower, and composition is wildly different due to the presence of oxidizing
and acidic fluids, i.e., water with dissolved H+ and O2. This water tears
the crystal structure of the magmatic minerals apart and creates new
minerals in their place that are not stable at magmatic temperature. So,
yes, igneous rocks do contain minerals not stable at igneous temperatures -
but that has NOTHING to do with their origin as molten magma.
There is no way that "The idea that blobs of molten rock rose slowly through
the crust and
cooled for eons of time is now in question" is a true statement!!
Furthermore, I can think of zero papers in the last few years that called
for catastrophic events to explain the origin of granites - where do they
make this stuff up?!?!? How embarrassing.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:34:19 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 17 2006 - 23:35:08 EDT