andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (10/21/83)
"1. The Theory of Evolution is Invalid.
- Evolution has never been observed. (Ed. note: He cited as
reference, the multitude of fruit fly experiments which have
never resulted in the evolution of a more complex fly species.)"
What about the new strains of DDT-resistant insects which have sprung
virtually from nowhere in the last several years?
What about penicillin-resistant gonorrhea? It was unheard-of until the
1960's.
What about totally new diseases, such as AIDS? If it didn't evolve
from other microorganisms, do creationists maintain that God recently
created this disease? If so, why?
"The fact that the Moon is recessing from the earth points
toward a young Earth - Moon system."
It might if it were true, but if anything the moon is moving steadily
closer to the earth.
"Leading evolutionists are aware of problems with the theory of
evolution, but are suppressing contradictory evidence."
Did the lecturer present any evidence, or was he just slandering the
community of scientists?
None of these points are as cut-and-dried as they are presented. For
example, the fact that one can create a mathematical model "proving"
creationism to challenge a model "proving" evolution simply
demonstrates that you can make a mathematical model to support any
non-trivial assertion. The evidence that dating techniques are invalid
fall apart in the face of application of the properties of exponential
series. And claims that historical changes in the speed of light are
sufficient to explain Doppler shifts are simply laughable.
But what else is this newgroup for but to preach to the converted?
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]emjej@uokvax.UUCP (10/28/83)
#R:orca:-23700:uokvax:8300010:000:186 uokvax!emjej Oct 25 13:28:00 1983 If there are some fundamentalists out there, I wonder if they could tell me whether in the Flood the fresh-water or salt-water fish died (thanks to osmotic pressure). James Jones
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/02/83)
While I certainly do not defend the travesty that is "Creation Science",
one point that Andrew Klossner (orca!andrew) made in his recent
article is in error. He says (first quoting from the article he
was responding to, and then giving his reply):
************************************************************************
"The fact that the Moon is recessing from the earth points
toward a young Earth - Moon system."
It might if it were true, but if anything the moon is moving steadily
closer to the earth.
************************************************************************
The guy in the office next to me has been measuring the recession of the
Moon from the Earth with the Texas Lunar Laser Ranging project for the
past 15 years. It most certainly does recede. The following is from
the 16 September 1983 issue of *Science* (p. 1166):
"Where was the moon in the early days of the solar
system? Experts will only agree that it was not
orbiting at its present distance of 380,000
kilometers; it was much closer to Earth in the past.
Today the moon is moving outward at about 4 centimeters
per year. A new study of the gravitational interaction of
the moon and Earth over geologic time suggests that the
moon was never closer than 225,000 kilometers, which would
avoid the apparent problem of a close encounter of
the two bodies only 2 billion years ago. It also
argues against the Earth originally calving the moon
while still young and hot, or capturing the moon as it
made a near miss."
The article goes on to outline the theory, which essentially shows that
tidal dissipation (the culprit in the story) is much more efficient
now than it was in the past because at present there are resonances
in the great ocean basins that did not exist in the past (because of
the faster rotation of the Earth in the past).
What the creationists have picked up on here is the fact that if
you naively extrapolate the present 4 cm/year recession back in
time, you find the Earth and moon in contact only
2 billion years B.P., which if it were true would obviously
cause problems for the rest of solar system dates. The answer
to this objection to evolution obviously is that simple extrapolations
are not necessarily a valid method of extending trends beyond the
the interval over which the measurements have been made.
The recent work is important because for the first time there is
a believable model that resolves the apparent difficulty. (The
reference to the actual work is Kirk Hansen, *Rev. Geophys. Space
Phys. 20*, 457 (1982); I haven't read it yet since it is in a
journal I don't normally read, but now I am going to have to!)
<FLAME ON>
This is just another example of how "Creation Scientists" attempt
to exploit scientific controversy, *THE LIFE-BLOOD OF SCIENCE*,
for their own nefarious ends. They misrepresent phenomena
that are not well understood as "proof" that science is wrong.
FEH! I can't stand it!
<FLAME OFF>
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail)
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@utexas-20 (ARPANET)