But a granite is not a set of rocks. Why do the elements within a granitic rock melt one time and react one way one time and another way another time if it is isolated? The first time it had mica flakes, this time it doesn't. Can you give me a chemical law for this as opposed to uniform ad hoc hypothesis instructorous?
Sure, granites most definitely do have complex compositions which vary widely. A global average of granite composition is:
* SiO2 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 72.04%
* Al2O3 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 14.42%
* K2O Ã¢â‚¬â€ 4.12%
* Na2O Ã¢â‚¬â€ 3.69%
* CaO Ã¢â‚¬â€ 1.82%
* FeO Ã¢â‚¬â€ 1.68%
* Fe2O3 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 1.22%
* MgO Ã¢â‚¬â€ 0.71%
* TiO2 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 0.30%
* P2O5 Ã¢â‚¬â€ 0.12%
* MnO Ã¢â‚¬â€ 0.05%http://en.wikipedia....cal_composition
In fact, granites are classified depending on the varying amounts of different things they contain using what's called the QAPF diagram
To understand why re-melting of a granite mass can change that composition we need to think about the heat involved in actually changing it's state from a solid to a liquid. Since different materials require different amounts of heat to melt it's a significant point that most granites have compositions that are eutectic, which means that all the minerals in a mass of granite will crystalize from a molten state at the same time. Now, if you re-heat granite to it's melting point you're probably going to melt some stuff around it too - when this mixes together it will change it's composition and thus change its eutectic point. This is one possible point of change due to re-melting off the top of my head, but if you are referring to some other specific change and/or reaction let me know.
Also then the adjacent different colored granites that Snelling shows on the video should have mixed. They were right beside each other yet not mixed. Yet he explained that other granites mix--an obvious sign of magma causing old granite to melt and mix with it.
Well, not all granites have the same melting points so it's possible that one nudged its way in next to another without melting it. I still don't see any reason we need to attribute this to instantaneous creation. . .think about how little we would know in geology if we did that every time we didn't have an answer for something. Is that really the road we should go down?
Bottom line, he is showing us something in granite which defies physical law. There is no natural explanation for why this happens.
I seriously doubt it. If Snelling has actually found a formation that defied any known physical law he would be publishing it in major journals rather than making presentations to laymen. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, but it certainly doesn't speak to the strength of his argument. Do you know what specific formation he is talking about?