rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/15/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
8. There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever
produce any new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b],
or the brain [c]. Just the human heart, a ten ounce pump
that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for
about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d].
a) ''It must be admitted, however, that it is a
considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that
finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs
(the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could
be improved by random mutations. This is even more
true for some of the ecological chain relationships
(the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However,
the objectors to random mutations have so far been
unable to advance any alternative explanation that was
supported by substantial evidence.'' [Ernst Mayr,
SYSTEMATICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (New York: Dover
Publications, 1942), p. 296.]
b) ''Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and
the ear without knowledge of sounds?'' [Sir Isaac
Newton, OPTICKS New York, 1952, pp. 369-370.]
c) ''Certainly there are those who argue that the
universe evolved out of a random process, but what
random process could produce the brain of a man or the
system of the human eye?'' [Dr. Wernher von Braun,
(probably the one rocket scientist most responsible
for the United States placing men on the moon), Cited
by Bill Keith, SCOPES II: THE GREAT DEBATE (Huntington
House, 1982), p. 25.]
d) Marlyn E. Clark, OUR AMAZING CIRCULATORY SYSTEM,
Technical Monograph No.5 (San Diego: Creation-Life
Publishers, 1976).
9. There is no direct evidence that any major group of
animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c].
a) ''There is not the slightest evidence that any of the
major groups arose from any other.'' [Dr. Austin Clark
F.R.G.S., QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December 28, p.
539.]
b) ''Not one change of species into another is on record
... we cannot prove that a single species has been
changed into another.'' [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE AND
LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin,
(London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 210.]
c) ''To a very large extent, the formation of a species
is a phenomenon which has occurred in the past, so
that the recognition of the events surrounding the
actual division of an ancient gene pool cannot be
directly observed. In all but a very small number of
cases the biologist must become historian and deal
with evidence for the past role of processes rather
than deal with these processes in action in
contemporary populations. The search for truly
incipient species has been difficult and, to a
considerable degree, frustrating. [Hampton L. Carson,
(Department of Genetics, University of Hawaii),
''Chromosomes and Species Formation,'' EVOLUTION,
Vol.32, No.4, 1978, pp. 925-927.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/16/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > We see that he's still using this stupid title, even though it has been *repeatedly* pointed out that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation. Doesn't the author even want to maintain a semblance of credibility? > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 8. There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever > produce any new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b], > or the brain [c]. Just the human heart, a ten ounce pump > that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for > about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d]. Hey, the watchmaker arguement again! Can we go home yet? > > 9. There is no direct evidence that any major group of > animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c]. What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution is correct? > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown I hope you guys have some better arguements waiting in the wings, or this is going to get boring *real* soon. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "In the long run, we'll all be dead."-John Maynard Keynes
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/17/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half
developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of
half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries,
veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other
vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a
wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a
good wing.
a) William Paley, NATURAL THEOLOGY, 1802 (reprinted
Houston TX: St.Thomas Press, 1972).
b) ''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree.'' [Charles Darwin, THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES (The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 175.]
11. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has
ever been observed.
12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the
simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that
the more ancient the language (for example, Latin, 200
B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the
more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders,
moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence
indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c].
a) David C. C. Watson, THE GREAT BRAIN ROBBERY (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83-89.
b) Henry M. Morris, ''Language, Creation and the Inner
Man,'' ICR IMPACT, No.28 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for
Creation Research).
c) Les Bruce, Jr., ''On the Origin of Language,'' ICR
IMPACT, No. 44 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research).
13. Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who
were raised without contact with other humans (feral
children) show that human speech appears to be learned
only from other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn
ability to speak. Therefore, the first humans must have
been endowed with a speaking ability; there is no evidence
that language has evolved [a].
a) Arthur Custance, GENESIS AND EARLY MAN (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250-271.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/17/85)
> I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half > developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of > half-developed feathers, eyes [b], No half-developed eyes? Numerous single-cell animals have half-developed eyes. Some multi-cellular animals have *very* simple eyes. > skin, tubes (arteries, > veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other > vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a > wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a > good wing. Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. > > 11. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has > ever been observed. But what does that have to do with the evolution/creation debate? > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > simplest. Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex. Also, another point that has nothing to do with evolution. > > 13. Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who > were raised without contact with other humans (feral > children) show that human speech appears to be learned > only from other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn > ability to speak. Therefore, the first humans must have > been endowed with a speaking ability; These studies also show that the ability to create a fire appears to be learned only from other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn ability to create fire. Therefore, the first humans must have been endowed with a fire-making ability. Either that, or humans are capable of independant and creative thought. (but who could believe that, after reading Kukuk's arguements?) > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown Just a thought, guys: could you read through the 116 categories of evidence and weed out the ones that are obviously far too stupid to fool any of us? It would save a lot of time. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I never met a man I didn't like."- M. Trudeau
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/19/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING.
14. It is illogical to maintain that similarities between
different species imply a genealogical relationship [a];
they may imply a common Designer.
a) ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology
may be used to prove relationships and evolution of
the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert
Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG
(Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.]
15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown
does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our
evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has
increased, the functions of all of these organs have been
discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs
implies that evolution never happened.
a) Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs: Putative Evidence
for Evolution of Homo Sapiens'' (Unpublished
Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans Ave., Bowling Green,
Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984).
16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no
forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells
[a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life
should exist in great abundance. None do. The
evolutionary tree has no trunk [c].
a) E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, ZOOLOGY
(W. B. Saunders Company, 1965), p. 163.
b) Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, FIVE KINGDOMS:
AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO THE PHYLA OF LIFE ON EARTH
(San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1982), pp.
178-179.
c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells
is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must
have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it
with such functions as digestion and respiration. The
mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of
any so called higher animals since it requires a
higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most
complex form of multicellular life, are so different
from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do
not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For
example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.)
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/19/85)
> 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half > developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of > half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries, This boy must be from the city. Look at a chicken's leg sometimes. You will find fully developed scales, feathers, and a range of structures in between. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/19/85)
> What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from > closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes > which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? > Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that > God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution > is correct? Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning. "Closely related species?" Assuming that species are "related," and further that some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds like you have assumed that which you wish to prove. > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Gary Samuelson
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)
> 9. There is no direct evidence that any major group of > animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c]. > > a) ''There is not the slightest evidence that any of the > major groups arose from any other.'' [Dr. Austin Clark > F.R.G.S., QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December 28, p. > 539.] What year/volume, please? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)
> > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > > > 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half > > developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of > > half-developed feathers, eyes [b], > > No half-developed eyes? Numerous single-cell animals have > half-developed eyes. Some multi-cellular animals have *very* > simple eyes. Some references for your "half-developed" eyes, please. And what makes you think "simple" = "half-developed"? > > skin, tubes (arteries, > > veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other > > vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a > > wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a > > good wing. > > Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you. What, do you think they have "wings"? > > > > 11. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has > > ever been observed. > But what does that have to do with the evolution/creation debate? > > > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > > simplest. > Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist > fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex. Also, > another point that has nothing to do with evolution. It must have SOMETHING to do with it, since we see all sorts of very complex organisms living today, and you guys keep telling us how simple organisms were when they first developed. If it's a fallacy, lots of evolutionists share it. Saunders and Ho view increase in complexity as the PARAMETER of evolution. Read what your own side has to say about things before you spout off so quickly. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/20/85)
>>> I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. >>> A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. >>> >>> 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half >>> developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of >>> half-developed feathers, eyes [b], >> >> No half-developed eyes? Numerous single-cell animals have >> half-developed eyes. Some multi-cellular animals have *very* >> simple eyes. > > [Me] > Some references for your "half-developed" eyes, please. > > And what makes you think "simple" = "half-developed"? One more comment. What I'd really like to see you do is demonstrate some sort of line evolutionary development of visual function, e.g., a phylogeny. Failing that, show us why we should give any credence to your comments. After all, guys, "one has to give some postive evidence for one's claims that stands by itself". Facile claims like the above don't cut it. I guess I'll keep raving a bit, as long as I'm here. I try to give references for my claims. Evolutionists keep asking for documentation of claims, and that's entirely reasonable, so I try to do it. When are the evolutionists going to do the same? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/20/85)
[] >>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >>> good wing. >> >> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. > > >you think they have "wings"? Isaac Dimitrovsky
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/20/85)
[] >>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >>> good wing. >> >> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. > >Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you. What, do >you think they have "wings"? The point of the flying squirrel example is NOT that the squirrel can really fly. After all, if it could, you would just say it was an example of an animal with a fully developed wing. The point of the example is precisely that the squirrel can't fly. In other words, it may be useful to an animal to have a limb which is both a bad wing and a reasonably good limb. In other other words, at least in the case of wings, it is possible to have intermediate forms which are useful for gliding and short flights but are not capable of full flight. And, at least in this case, I don't think you can dispute that this point has been established. Can you? By the way, an interesting puzzle is to try and list all the different types of creatures that have some sort of flying ability. I come up with this probably incomplete list: 1. Birds. 2. Insects. 3. Flying Squirrel, Bat, etc. 4. Flying Fish. 5. Flying Frog. The neatest one of these has to be the flying frog. These critters have webbing on their feet which they can extend to allow them to glide when they jump. They were shown on The Living Planet, I can't remember what episode number. Isaac Dimitrovsky
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/20/85)
[] >> What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from >> closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes >> which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? > >Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning. "Closely related >species?" Assuming that species are "related," and further that >some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds >like you have assumed that which you wish to prove. First of all, I must correct the original note. The prediction evolution makes, which is confirmed by the evidence, is that species which diverged later will have proteins which are more similar than species which diverged earlier. So the criterion is when species diverged, not how similar they are. Second, to address the charge of circular reasoning in the reply, the times when species diverged were not assumed, but were deduced from other evidence such as the fossil record, long before the biochemical evidence became available. This, by the way, is an example of an easily falsifiable prediction made by evolution. If, for example bullfrog hemoglobin was closer to human hemoglobin than chimpanzee hemoglobin, this would pose a very serious problem for evolution. And likewise, any one of thousands of other such examples could falsify evolution - but none have. Isaac Dimitrovsky
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/21/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-13.)
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
...
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING.
17. As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult
stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial
similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult
forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution [a-h].
The drawings by Ernst Haeckel, which led to this
widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l].
a) ''This generalization was originally called the
biogenic law by Haeckel and is often stated as
'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude
interpretation of embryological sequences will not
stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings
have been almost universally pointed out by modern
authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in
biological mythology.'' [Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard
W. Holm, THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1963), p. 66.]
b) ''It is now firmly established that ontogeny does NOT
repeat phylogeny.'' [emphasis theirs] [George Gaylord
Simpson and William Beck, LIFE: AN INTRODUCTION TO
BIOLOGY (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965),
p. 241.]
c) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE
DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
Fields, 1982), pp. 202-205.
d) ''Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's
'Theory of Recapitulation', facile, tidy, and
plausible, widely accepted without critical
examination, done so much harm to science.'' [Sir
Gavin R. de Beer, AN ATLAS OF EVOLUTION (New York:
Nelson, 1964), p. 38.]
e) ''The biogenic law has become so deeply rooted in
biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in
spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by
numerous subsequent scholars.'' [Walter J. Bock,
Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia
University, ''Evolution by Orderly Law,'' SCIENCE,
Vol.164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685.]
f) ''We no longer believe we can simply read in the
embryonic development of a species its exact
evolutionary history.'' [H. Frings and M. Frings,
CONCEPTS OF ZOOLOGY, p. 267.]
g) ''The type of analogical thinking which leads to
theories that development is based on the
recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no
longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to
biologists.'' [G. H. Waddington, PRINCIPLES OF
EMBRYOLOGY (George Allen and Unwin, 1956), p. 10.]
h) ''...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and,
while it lasted, regretable influence on the progress
of embryology.'' [Sir Gavin R. de Beer, (Director of
the British Museum of Natural History), EMBRYOS AND
ANCESTORS (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p.
10.]
i) Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this ''Biogenic Law''
that was quickly adopted in textbooks and
encyclopedias throughout the world, distorted his
data. Thompson explains: ''A natural law can only be
established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of
course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange
existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding
from the simple to the complex, intercalating
imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and
then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding
to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series.
Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were
dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the
embryological development had been falsified. When the
'convergence' of embryos was not entirely
satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations to fit
his theory. The alterations were slight but
significant. The 'biogenetic law' as a proof of
evolution is valueless.'' [W. R. Thompson,
''Introduction to the ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles
Darwin; Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E.P.
Dutton & Sons, 1956 reprint of 1928 edition), p. 12.]
j) M. Bowden, APE-MEN: FACT OR FALLACY?, 2nd edition
(Great Britain: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp.
142-143.
k) Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., ''Ontogeny Recapitulates
Phylogeny,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, June
1969, pp. 27-34.
l) Michael Pitman, ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider,
1984), p. 120.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownbill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/22/85)
> 15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown > does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our > evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has > increased, the functions of all of these organs have been > discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs > implies that evolution never happened. > > a) Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs: Putative Evidence > for Evolution of Homo Sapiens'' (Unpublished > Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans Ave., Bowling Green, > Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984). > What good is an unpublished manuscript as a reference??? > 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. > But there are organisms which normally are unicellular, but occasionally (when conditions warrant) join together to form a multicellular organism. I refer to slime molds. They bridge the alleged gap rather nicely. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (04/22/85)
> B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > > 17. As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult > stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors. > Embryologists no longer consider the superficial > similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult > forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution [a-h]. > The drawings by Ernst Haeckel, which led to this > widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l]. > [Numerous references] It is not a valid argument against evolution to ressurect a long-discredited argument and show that it's wrong. One could as well "prove" that the earth is flat by citing discredited evidence for its roundness. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/22/85)
I am seriously beginning to think that this forum is a waste of time. I get the strong impression that many creationists think that a thousand lousy arguments add up to at least one cood one. On the off chance that some useful discussion may come of this I include the following: > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. Well, here we go again. YOU DO NOT PROVE CREATIONISM BY ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.) This has alredy been discussed. However it is interesting to note that there have been no responses to any criticisms whatsoever. > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 14. It is illogical to maintain that similarities between > different species imply a genealogical relationship [a]; > they may imply a common Designer. A real gem this one is. Since when is a designer within the domain of science? The ignorance of science and the scientific method illustrated in these articles is both depressing, and frustrating. > a) ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology > may be used to prove relationships and evolution of > the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert > Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG > (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.] Evolutionists do not reach their conclusions solely on the basis of morphological similarities. > > 15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown > does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our > evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has > increased, the functions of all of these organs have been > discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs > implies that evolution never happened. > > a) Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs: Putative Evidence > for Evolution of Homo Sapiens'' (Unpublished > Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans Ave., Bowling Green, > Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984). This argument is trash. First you imply that organs of unknown function exist, then you quote science as saying they don't. > 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. > If you examined the literature more carefully would have learned that there are two kinds of single celled creatures; those with and without nuclei. It has been proposed that originally organelles like nuclei were separate creatures, and entered into a symbiotic relationship with others. Therefore it could be claimed that a single celled animal with nucleus is an example of a two celled structure - one within the other. The argument can be generalized to include structures like chloroplasts, mitochondria etc. Padraig Houlahan.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/22/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-13.) > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > ... > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > > 17. As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult > stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors. > Embryologists no longer consider the superficial > similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult > forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution [a-h]. > The drawings by Ernst Haeckel, which led to this > widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l]. > This is pathetic. If it is no longer considered evidence for evolution why bother attacking it? Are we to conclude that rejected arguments for evolution constitute arguments in favor of creationism? Evolutionists, to the best of my knowledge, will reject fairy tales as proof; I suppose that they now are in creationist's arsenal. Padraig Houlahan.
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (04/22/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING.
...
18. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been
found are overstated [a-c]. It is now universally
acknowledged that Piltdown man was a hoax [d]. The
fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a
pig's tooth. Prior to 1978, the known remains of
Ramapithecus consisted merely of a handful of teeth and
jaw fragments. It is now known that these fragments were
pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey [e] so as to
resemble portions of the human jaw [f]. Ramapithecus was
just an ape [g]. The discoverer of Java man later
acknowledged that Java man was similar to a large gibbon
[h,i] and that he had withheld evidence to that effect
[j-m]. Peking man is considered by many experts to be the
remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and
exploited for food by true man [n,o]. Furthermore, Skull
1470, discovered by Richard Leakey, is more human-like and
yet older than Java man, Peking man, and the
Australopithecines [p,q]. Detailed computer studies of the
Australopithecines have conclusively shown that they are
not intermediate between man and apes [r]. The
Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and
Mary Leakey, are actually quite distinct from both man and
apes. Lucy, a type of Australopithecine, was initially
believed to have walked upright in a human manner. Recent
studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just her knee
joints, now show that this is highly improbable [s] and
that she probably swung from the trees [t,u]. For about
100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal
man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that
this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled
with arthritis and rickets [v-x]. Neanderthal man,
Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human.
Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of
their bodies, are quite imaginative and are not supported
by the evidence [y]. Furthermore, the dating techniques
are questionable.
a) M. Bowden, APE-MEN: FACT OR FALLACY?, 2nd edition
(Great Britain: Sovereign Publications, 1981).
b) Duane T. Gish, ''Multivariate Analysis: Man...Apes..
Creation Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 298-305.
c) Duane T. Gish, ''Richard Leakey's Skull,'' BATTLE FOR
CREATION (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1976),
pp. 193-200.
d) Stephen J. Gould, ''The Piltdown Conspiracy,'' NATURAL
HISTORY, Vol.89, No.8, August 1980, pp. 8-28.
e) Allen L. Hammond, ''Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,''
SCIENCE 83, November 1983, p. 43.
f) Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, ''False Start
of the Human Parade,'' NATURAL HISTORY, Aug./Sept.
1979, pp. 86-91.
g) Hammond, p. 43.
h) ''Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a
gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons,.... ''...[it
had] a close affinity with the gibbon group of
anthropoid apes. ''...This comparison more than
confirms the opinion of Marcellin Boule, pronounced
fifteen years ago, that Pithecanthropus may have been
a large gibbonoid species,....'' [Eugene Dubois, ''On
the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java
and Pithecanthropus Erectus,'' MAN, January 1937, pp.
1-7.]
i) C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, HUMAN EVOLUTION, 2nd
edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,
1977), p. 204.
j) Bowden, pp. 138-142, 144-148.
k) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE
DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
Fields, 1982), pp. 208-209.
l) ''The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a
decline in scientific integrity.... A striking
example, which has only recently come to light, is the
alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be
used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes;
but even before this a similar instance of tinkering
with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer
of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many
years after his sensational report, that he had found
in the same deposits bones that are definitely
human.'' [W. R. Thompson, ''Introduction to the ORIGIN
OF SPECIES,'' by Charles Darwin; Everyman No. 811
Library (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956 reprint of
1928 edition), p. 17.]
m) Patrick O'Connell, SCIENCE OF TODAY AND THE PROBLEMS
OF GENESIS, 2nd edition, 1969, pp. 139-142.
n) O'Connell, pp. 108-138.
o) Bowden, pp. 90-137.
p) ''Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our
theories of early man.'' [Richard E. Leakey, ''Skull
1470--New Clue to Earliest Man?'', NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p. 819.]
q) William R. Fix, THE BONE PEDDLERS: SELLING EVOLUTION
(New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 50-61.
r) Charles E. Oxnard, ''The Place of the
Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for
Doubt?'', NATURE, Vol.258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389-
395.
s) William L. Jungers, ''Lucy's Limbs: Skeletal Allometry
and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,''
NATURE, 24 June 1982, pp. 676-678.
t) Jeremy Cherfas, ''Trees Have Made Man Upright,'' NEW
SCIENTIST, 20 January 1983, pp. 172-178.
u) Jack T. Stern, Jr. and Randall L. Susman, ''The
Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,''
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol.60,
March 1983, pp. 279-317.
v) Bowden, pp. 171-173.
w) Francis Ivanhoe, ''Was Virchow Right About
Neanderthal?'', NATURE, Vol.227, 8 August 1970, pp.
577-578.
x) William L. Straus, Jr., and A. J. E. Cave, ''Pathology
and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,'' THE QUARTERLY
REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December, 1957, pp. 348-363.
y) Boyce Rensberger, ''Facing the Past,'' SCIENCE 81,
October 1981, p. 49.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownfritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (04/22/85)
> > What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from > > closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes > > which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? > > Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that > > God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution > > is correct? > > Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning. "Closely related > species?" Assuming that species are "related," and further that > some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds > like you have assumed that which you wish to prove. > > > Jeff Sonntag > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > Gary Samuelson How about if we say species that resemble one another in physical characteristics(i.e. man and apes, or, less controversialy, similar species of, oh let's say bears) Dave Fritzinger
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/22/85)
[......................] > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > Here we go again... > ... > > > 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half > developed. Depends on how you look at it. All species appear half developed, depending on what you think they are developing toward. They show design [a]. There are no examples of > half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries, > veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other > vital organs. Not true. There are ranges of eyes and ears from the very simple to the complex. Note some reptiles 'hear' vibrations without ears, the use of the jaw to detect vibrations may explain why early jawbones evolved into the 'hammer' and 'anvil', thus making the jaw itself an early form of ear. Simple light sensitive cells could have been an early 'eye'. You can find many examples of lesser developed organs, intestines, etc. and if you look at simpler and simpler organisms, you find these structures simplify to the point that it is not hard to postulate mechanisms whereby they may have risen naturally. > For example, if a limb were to evolve into a > wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a > good wing. Not necessarily. If you look at flying squirrels and the like, you find that excess folds of skin at their sides are used for gliding. Eventually, the upper arms could change thru evolution to become more wing-like, if such flight enhances the organisms capability to survive. > > a) William Paley, NATURAL THEOLOGY, 1802 (reprinted > Houston TX: St.Thomas Press, 1972). > b) ''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable > contrivances for adjusting the focus to different > distances, for admitting different amounts of light, > and for the correction of spherical and chromatic > aberration, could have been formed by natural > selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the > highest degree.'' [Charles Darwin, THE ORIGIN OF > SPECIES (The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 175.] Not when you look at developments from simpler forms. > 11. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has > ever been observed. Huh? I though we were discussing evidence for creation, not Chariots of the Gods. > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that > the more ancient the language (for example, Latin, 200 > B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the > more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders, > moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence > indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c]. I doubt this one very much. Have you looked at the asian languages? Not being a linguist myself, I really couldn't say. Still this is not particularly compelling evidence pro-creation OR con-evolution. > > 13. Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who > were raised without contact with other humans (feral > children) show that human speech appears to be learned > only from other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn > ability to speak. Therefore, the first humans must have > been endowed with a speaking ability; there is no evidence > that language has evolved [a]. > What kind of speech? Do feral children not make any sounds at all? (note many animals do!) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/22/85)
> > What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from > > closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes > > which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? > > Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that > > God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution > > is correct? > > Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning. "Closely related > species?" Assuming that species are "related," and further that > some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds > like you have assumed that which you wish to prove. > > > Jeff Sonntag > > Gary Samuelson Since you don't seem to understand what I meant, I'll try again. Long before any biochemical similarities were studied, people noticed that some species shared many common traits, while other sets of species shared few. For example, men and apes share many common traits, while men and bullfrogs share far fewer. Then, biochemistry advanced far enough to be a useful science, someone got the bright idea to check and see if sets of species like men and apes, which share common traits might also be very similar biochemically. It turned out that sets of species which share more common traits are more similar biochemically. This was easily predicted by evolution, since sets of species which share more common traits are thought to have more recent common ancestors. If creation is correct, why is it that species which share many common physical characteristics also have many more biochemical similarities than randomly selected sets of species? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "But if we took out the bones, it wouldn't be crunchy, now, would it?"
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/23/85)
[..................] > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.) > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 14. It is illogical to maintain that similarities between > different species imply a genealogical relationship [a]; > they may imply a common Designer. Sez you. > > a) ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology > may be used to prove relationships and evolution of > the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert > Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG > (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.] > > 15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown > does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our > evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has > increased, the functions of all of these organs have been > discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs > implies that evolution never happened. > The boa constrictor has rudiments of hind legs and pelvis, several birds are flightless, the mole and cave salamander have a lens and a retina that serves no function, our wisdom teeth may exist because our ancestors had a larger jaw that could accomodate them. Despite the fact that Haeckel's Law of Biogenisis may be completely bogus, many humans are born with vestigal tails. There is actually no shortage at all of examples of vestigal organs. What widespread absence? Obviously a MANUFACTURED widespread absence designed to snow the general public who may not be educated enough to investigate these empty claims. In addition, this reference looks highly suspect, 'Unpublished Manuscript'? Grasping at straws you guys. > a) Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs: Putative Evidence > for Evolution of Homo Sapiens'' (Unpublished > Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans Ave., Bowling Green, > Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984). > > 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. > If this is true, and I don't know offhand if it is, there could be a lot of reasons for this. Single celled organisms may have a tendency to grow larger than 20 cells once they obtain the ability to grow to multiple cells. I would give this one much further study before I would write it off to 'God Magic'. > c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells > is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must > have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it > with such functions as digestion and respiration. The > mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of > any so called higher animals since it requires a > higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most > complex form of multicellular life, are so different > from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do > not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For > example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.) > This is an excellent example of the twisted nature of creationist propoganda. Anyone remotely familiar with current evolutionary thought would know that noone expects that this 20 celled organism has been around unchanged since the days when all life was less than 20 or so cells. Clearly such a parasite would have evolved its parasitic nature after some life had evolved that it could be parasite to! Yet this is still presented as evidence. Note how the creationists seem to like to forget that once a new organism evolves it dosen't always stabilize forever. Organisms continue to evolve, and not all primitive forms are directly in the evolutionary path of higher forms. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/23/85)
> > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > > > simplest. > > Here we have the commonly pointed out but never corrected creationist > > fallacy that evolution must progress from the simple to the complex. Also, > > another point that has nothing to do with evolution. > > It must have SOMETHING to do with it, since we see all sorts of very > complex organisms living today, and you guys keep telling us how simple > organisms were when they first developed. I have trouble believing that Paul is *really* as dense as he is pretending here. Whether languages evolved, were taught to us by aliens, gods, or by 42 cases of walkmen mysteriously transfered back into time has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution, which is a mechanism to explain the origin of *species*, not languages. Got it, Paul? And the other point: Yes, the first organisms must have been very simple. Now there are organisms which are much more complex. That doesn't mean that this progression was monotonic. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
Yet another fallacious posting about evolution. He is claiming that all evolutionary theory is outdated, fallacious, etc., but without enumerating all? There is no doubt that there are outdated theories in every scientific field. So what? We just went through Haeckle's ontogeny theory two months ago. here is a reposting of one of my articles (which I don't recall seeing any criticisms of-- I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.) From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: ontogeny not recapitulating phylogeny Date: 25 Feb 85 17:14:04 GMT Ray Miller has written a scoffing criticism of a maligned and misunderstood phrase. I'm going to try to explain the current understanding of "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny." First, let's get straight that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a bumper-sticker bastardization of what Haeckle really said. It is too short and pithy to be exact. Another example of such a summarization concerns the philosophical debate over which is primary, mind or matter (from roughly the same period.) "What is mind? No matter." "What is matter? Never mind." Next, let's translate it into non-technical English. As a first, rough translation, let's try "During development into an adult, an organism passes through stages resembling the organisms from the root of the evolutionary tree up to the presently occupied branch tip." This first translation is obviously too vague. During those stages, would the organism resemble the adults? Obviously not-- at no point in their development do humans look like little adult fishes or reptiles. A more appropriate translation is "during an individual's devlopment, it will pass through stages that its ancestors passed through." So, in our embryonic and fetal development, we will pass through stages resembling embryonic and fetal stages of fishes and reptiles (and other ancestral taxa.) This concept powered major studies of the development of a wide variety of organisms in a quest to determine which evolved from what. A vast new range of embryologic information was discovered, which is still much used today. Not just gill slits were discovered: the progressive development of the chambers of the heart, basic patterns of cleavage of eggs, the fundamental tube-within-a-tube structure we have in common with many invertebrates, etc. The one obvious question is why this should be so. Why would developmental stages of ancestors be retained? The answer is that sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. One important reason why they might be retained is because development is a step-by-step building process. Loss of one of the steps might be fatal. Adding new steps might not. One reason why they may not be retained is if a step is modified. Eventually the sum of modifications may be sufficient to conceal the original path of development. There are more possibilities still. Development of an organism consists of many steps occurring in series and parallel. Changing the order of the steps may also make the process different from that of an ancestor. I don't know how well Haeckle understood these points. Nowadays, the term "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is rather useless, as it is too terse to be exact, and too catchy to be forgotten. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/23/85)
In article <332@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > > 8. There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever > produce any new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b], > or the brain [c]. Just the human heart, a ten ounce pump > that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for > about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d]. This is irrelevent to evolutionary theory as it is *really* held by serious scientists. Noone seriously believes that such organs appeared complete and functional by direct mutation from a previous state. This is where selection and *lots* of time come in, especially selection. Compare the eye of a primitive chordate, such as Amphioxis(sp?) to the advanced vertebrate eye. The Amphioxis eye is *much* simpler, and yet it is similar in embryonic origin and overall structure. This is how something like the human eye is really held to have originated. (The same for the other organs mentioned, you must look at the simpler ancestral form before declaring it implossible). > > a) ''It must be admitted, however, that it is a > considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that > finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs > (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could > be improved by random mutations. This is even more > true for some of the ecological chain relationships > (the famous Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, > the objectors to random mutations have so far been > unable to advance any alternative explanation that was > supported by substantial evidence.'' [Ernst Mayr, > SYSTEMATICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (New York: Dover > Publications, 1942), p. 296.] This is out of context, I have read much of E. Mayr's writing, and he is in fact one of the originators of the basic concepts of modern evolutionary theory, including much of what is now called punctuated equilibrium theory. He is most certainly *not* trying to cast doubt on evolutionary theory. Two more outdated, long since answered dificulties(See below). > b) [Sir Isaac Newton, OPTICKS New York, 1952, pp. 369-370.] > c) [Dr. Wernher von Braun, > (probably the one rocket scientist most responsible > for the United States placing men on the moon) > d) Marlyn E. Clark, OUR AMAZING CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, > Technical Monograph No.5 (San Diego: Creation-Life > Publishers, 1976). > > 9. There is no direct evidence that any major group of > animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c]. Just what sort of evidence do you want? The origin of *major* groups takes considerable time, it could not possibly be observed directly. But there is considerable evidence from comparative anatomy and paleontology which strongly supports such origins. Occam's razor, the *pattern* of diversity is best explained by common origins. > > a) ''There is not the slightest evidence that any of the > major groups arose from any other.'' [Dr. Austin Clark > F.R.G.S., QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December 28, p. What year was this published?? This has changed quite a bit recently. > 539.] > b) [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE AND > LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin, > (London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 210.] > c) ''To a very large extent, the formation of a species > is a phenomenon which has occurred in the past, so > that the recognition of the events surrounding the > actual division of an ancient gene pool cannot be > directly observed. In all but a very small number of > cases the biologist must become historian and deal > with evidence for the past role of processes rather > than deal with these processes in action in > contemporary populations. The search for truly > incipient species has been difficult and, to a > considerable degree, frustrating. [Hampton L. Carson, > (Department of Genetics, University of Hawaii), > ''Chromosomes and Species Formation,'' EVOLUTION, > Vol.32, No.4, 1978, pp. 925-927.] > I must to some extent disagree with this man(if you have not taken the quote out of context). There are examples of species in every stage of transition from a uniform population to pairs of similar but distinct species. This is strong evidence for the validity of the speciation model used in evolutionary theory. There are also many example of what appear to be new species, try reading "The Tempo and Mode of Evolution"(at least I think thats the title) for more detail. (I will check the title and author this weekend). This repeats the same two primary errors of the previous postings, it is primarily an attack on evolution not a support of creationism, and it uses outdated data from the literature. Even *if* you should come up with evidence that invalidates evolutionary theory, this does *not* mean I must accept creationism. In fact as things stand now I would have to say that other than evolutionary theory there is *no* valid, scientifically acceptable theory of the pattern of diversity in life, and without it I would simply say "It is not known". It is perfectly acceptible for a scientist to hold *no* theory at all if there is no adequate one available. The reason that old articles are not meaningful in debunking evolution is because science has not remained static for the past 30 years, and most of the work that old has been superceded several times over by more recent work, usually answering any problems mentioned in them. In particular, most old statements of the form "there is no evidence that ..." are no longer true, we have found much of the evidence that was missing 30 years ago. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/23/85)
In article <338@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: >14. It is illogical to maintain that similarities between > different species imply a genealogical relationship [a]; > they may imply a common Designer. > > a) ''. . . it is unscientific to maintain that morphology > may be used to prove relationships and evolution of > the higher categories of units, . . . .'' [N. Heribert > Nilsson, (Lund University), SYNTHETISCHE ARTBILDUNG > (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.] Science makes use of Occam's Razor. Occam's razor supports the geneology before it supports a designer. And what is the justification of the author of this artfully excised quotation? >15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown > does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our > evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has > increased, the functions of all of these organs have been > discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs > implies that evolution never happened. > a) Jerry Bergman, ''Vestigial Organs: Putative Evidence > for Evolution of Homo Sapiens'' (Unpublished > Manuscript, 1306 North Orleans Ave., Bowling Green, > Ohio 43402: 137 pages, 1984). A vestigial organ is one that is reduced from a previous state (induced by comparison with homologous organs in other taxa.) What permits natural selection to favor the reduction? The reduction in types or quantity of function. The amount of that reduction of function determines how much reduction of organ is adaptive. Thus, there is no shortage of vestigial organs. Such as the muscles that move our ears. Such as the wings of flightless birds. Etc. >16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. The first sentence is accurate. The second sentence is wrong for three reasons. 1) They need not exist now, just as trilobites and dinosaurs don't. 2) They may have existed and not yet have been found as fossils or extant. 3) It's quite possible that multicellular animals with differentiated organs developed from colonial (or clonal) animals. > c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells > is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must > have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it > with such functions as digestion and respiration. The > mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of > any so called higher animals since it requires a > higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most > complex form of multicellular life, are so different > from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do > not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For > example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.) The fact that an animal today is an obligate parasite in no way requires its distant ancestors to have been obligate parasites. There are endless examples (I'll list some on request.) Mesozoa are not really considered likely ancestors anyhow. Ancestors of today's multicellular animals are still hypothetical. There are no good extant candidates, and fossil candidates will be extremely hard to find (because of size, lack of preservable structures, and difficulties in distinguishing cellular-level distinctions from other organisms.) After all, how many fossil invertebrate embryos are known? (They show comparable problems in fossilization.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (04/24/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.) > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 18. .... > The discoverer of Java man later > acknowledged that Java man was similar to a large gibbon > [h,i] and that he had withheld evidence to that effect > [j-m]. > > .... > > h) ''Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a > gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons,.... ''...[it > had] a close affinity with the gibbon group of > anthropoid apes. ''...This comparison more than > confirms the opinion of Marcellin Boule, pronounced > fifteen years ago, that Pithecanthropus may have been > a large gibbonoid species,....'' [Eugene Dubois, ''On > the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java > and Pithecanthropus Erectus,'' MAN, January 1937, pp. > 1-7.] > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this argument saying that Java Man isn't valid evidence for evolution because it's genetically related to gibbons and not to man? (Note that it had *"a close affinity with the gibbon group"*, not that it *was* a gibbon.) The particular group it's related seems of less importance than the fact that it's genetically related to *somebody*. I think it's still good evidence for evolution. --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/24/85)
In article <335@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > > 10. All species appear perfectly developed, not half > developed. They show design [a]. There are no examples of > half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes (arteries, > veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other > vital organs. For example, if a limb were to evolve into a > wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a > good wing. This is incorrect, there are many examples of organisms, both living and fossil with intermediate developement of specialized organs. In my last posting I mentioned Amphioxis with its simple eyes. Then there is the Russian fossil Archosaur, Longisquama, which appears to have incipient feathers. Or the series of fossils showing the transition from fish scales of the shark sort to teeth. Or the series of Synapsid fossils showing a transition from a reptilian to a mamalian jaw articulation, with gradual reduction of the extra bones to the small bones of the ear. These all show *clear* intermediate morphology, which is evolution explains as actual intermediates. > > 11. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has > ever been observed. Irrelevant, we have not even found any extra-solar terrestrial planets yet! This has nothing to do with a theory based on the observation of life on Earth. > > 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > simplest. On the contrary, language studies reveal that > the more ancient the language (for example, Latin, 200 > B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the > more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders, > moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence > indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c]. > The problem is these languages are only the oldest *attested* languages, since writing was only invented about 1500 BC. Homo sapiens is generally held to have been around at least half a million years, thus these languages would have a *long* history of prior developement. Furthermore, individual languages do not evelve in the *biological* sense, they are all full expressions of the human capacity for language. Thus, this is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, since huamans are not evolving *biologically* with respect to language ability. Also, I think you will find that most linguists would disagree about the existance of a general tendency for "devolution" in languages, all your examples are from the restricted set called Indo-European languages which share a common heritage, and thus do not form an independant sample. A wider sample shows much less of a uniform tendency. > > 13. Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who > were raised without contact with other humans (feral > children) show that human speech appears to be learned > only from other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn > ability to speak. Therefore, the first humans must have > been endowed with a speaking ability; there is no evidence > that language has evolved [a]. > You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of language would be to raise a group of children *together* from infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they invent a language for use among themselves. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (04/24/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.) > Neither was creation, but many have said this before. > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > But isn't that all that Creationism is, anyway: wishful thinking? We don't know how this all came about, so lets say that someone real nice made it this way. > 18. .... Lucy, a type of Australopithecine, was initially > believed to have walked upright in a human manner. Recent > studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just her knee > joints, now show that this is highly improbable [s] and > that she probably swung from the trees [t,u]. For about > 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal > man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that > this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled > with arthritis and rickets [v-x]. Do the uprooting of some fallacies mean that Evolution as a whole is wrong? That would be like saying that, since Mendel fudged his numbers, we have to throw genetics out the window. And even if we could say that this proved evolution to be wrong, how does this prove Creationism to be right? Also, by acknowledging the correctness of the age of these fossil records, how can you still say that the world was created ~4000 years ago, since these have been around for an amount of time three orders of magnitude greater than that? > II. (Astronomical Sciences): I can't wait to see this . Maybe he'll say that the Earth isn't perfectly round, therefore, all of science, as we know it, is wrong. (-: -Colin Rafferty {rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.arpa} P.S. I think that if I had to "believe" in something nonscientific, I'd go for Descartes' "evil demon" any day of the week. )-: translate as 'no joke'--^
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/24/85)
> If creation is correct, why is it that species which share many common > physical characteristics also have many more biochemical similarities than > randomly selected sets of species? You haven't been paying attention: it's because God (excuse me I mean The Creator...gotta stay scientific here) made it that way.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/24/85)
In article <339@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-13.) > ... > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > > 17. As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult > stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors. > Embryologists no longer consider the superficial > similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult > forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution [a-h]. > The drawings by Ernst Haeckel, which led to this > widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l]. > This is not really relevant, the recapitulation hypothesis was never *central* to evolutionary theory, which is a theory about a *process*, not about particular phylogenies. Just because it is not possible to read off the adult ancestors of an organism from its embryology says nothing about the *process* of evolution. Besides, embryology is *still* considered useful in elucidating the evolutionary history of an organism, through comparisons of the *embryonic* stages, which are considered to retain similarity to one another even when the adult stages have changed significantly. Thus there are three errors here, one is the continued use of outdated science as arguments against evolution, this matter has been adequately dealt with. In fact the references listed are the papers in which it *was* dealt with, that is the quotes were taken out of context. Third, there is a conceptual error, the hypothesis is presented as totally rejected, without any mention of the revised(replacement) form based on embryological similiarity. This is misleading. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/24/85)
In article <338@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 14. It is illogical to maintain that similarities between > different species imply a genealogical relationship [a]; > they may imply a common Designer. > The problem with this is that the similarities are *not* the sort one would expect from a designer, since they involve inefficiencies, the use of similar or identicle parts for vastly different purposes, and in general a tendency toward "makeshift" type solutions to problems. Also the "argument from design" is also invalid, thus before we can accept a designer as a *scientific* fact we must have better *for* his existance. Design is a very subjective concept, and thus cannot be used as a basis for his existance. > > 15. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown > does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our > evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has > increased, the functions of all of these organs have been > discovered [a]. The widespread absence of vestigial organs > implies that evolution never happened. > Oh, really? I have never of any function for the appendix! Besides, there are clear vestigial organs in many other organisms, including such absurd things as legs completely included within the torso. It is the existance of anatomically identical organs with vastly *different* function that is the evidence for evolution, vestigiality is merely an extreme case of functional difference. Rating: incorrect *and* irrelevent. > > 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. > Completely invalid logic, you are assuming that multicellular life must develope by simple accretion of single cells. This is not so, it may also have originated via colonialism, which then became obligate. Ther *are* intermediates appropriate to this concept of the origin of multicellularity, try Volvox, sponges, Choanoflagelates, and various other forms with colonies that show cellular specialization -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/24/85)
[] >>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >>> good wing. >> >> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. > > >you think they have "wings"? You might consider what they do have as 'half-wings'. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/24/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > 18. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been > found are overstated [a-c]. It is now universally > acknowledged that Piltdown man was a hoax [d]. The > fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a > pig's tooth. Prior to 1978, the known remains of > Ramapithecus consisted merely of a handful of teeth and > jaw fragments. It is now known that these fragments were > pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey [e] so as to > resemble portions of the human jaw [f]. Ramapithecus was > just an ape [g]. The discoverer of Java man later > acknowledged that Java man was similar to a large gibbon > [h,i] and that he had withheld evidence to that effect > [j-m]. Peking man is considered by many experts to be the > remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and > exploited for food by true man [n,o]. Furthermore, Skull > 1470, discovered by Richard Leakey, is more human-like and > yet older than Java man, Peking man, and the > Australopithecines [p,q]. Detailed computer studies of the > Australopithecines have conclusively shown that they are > not intermediate between man and apes [r]. The > Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and > Mary Leakey, are actually quite distinct from both man and > apes. Lucy, a type of Australopithecine, was initially > believed to have walked upright in a human manner. Recent > studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just her knee > joints, now show that this is highly improbable [s] and > that she probably swung from the trees [t,u]. For about > 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal > man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that > this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled > with arthritis and rickets [v-x]. Neanderthal man, > Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human. > Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of > their bodies, are quite imaginative and are not supported > by the evidence [y]. Furthermore, the dating techniques > are questionable. Even if all of this is true, it has nothing to do with disproving evolution. It merely indicates that SOME evidence may have been misinterpreted. Owing to the immense amount of evidence for evolution, it is no surprise that some of it has been misinterpreted. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (04/25/85)
> 16. There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no > forms of animal life with 2, 3,..., or even 20 cells > [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life > should exist in great abundance. None do. The > evolutionary tree has no trunk [c]. > > a) E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, ZOOLOGY > (W. B. Saunders Company, 1965), p. 163. > b) Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, FIVE KINGDOMS: > AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO THE PHYLA OF LIFE ON EARTH > (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1982), pp. > 178-179. > c) Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells > is a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must > have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it > with such functions as digestion and respiration. The > mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors of > any so called higher animals since it requires a > higher animal as its host. Sponges, the next most > complex form of multicellular life, are so different > from higher forms of life that even evolutionists do > not consider them as ancestral to anything. (For > example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.) Not true. Take for example the family Volvocaceae. It contains species with 4, 8, 16 , and 32 cells as well as Volvox which has thousands. There may be two reasons for these flagllates not being included in the references you gave. One is that they contain cloroplasts and are therefore sometimes clasified as plants. This is an entirely arbitrary clasification and is certianly argueable since the life forms can move under their own power. The other is that they are often clasified not as multi-celular organisms but as colonies of protozooa. This is an even more arbitrary. (It is due to the fact that there is a close resemblance to other protozooa.) There is no really sharp line between a colony of geneticaly identical organisms and a single multi-cellular organism. One criterion might be based on the number of cells, but then it becomes impsible BY DEFINITION to have an organism with just a few cells. Note that these organisms are free living (not parisites) and can be found in any pond. Why aren't there more organisms with small numbers of cells? (if hundreds of species aren't enough) Well, dividing an organism up into cells is not without cost. The cells must be bound together and organized etc.. On the other hand there are disadvantages to having very large cells. It is not obvious that there is any organism size for which 2 cells are optimal. _Pytoflagellates_, E. Cox Ed., Elsevier/North-Holland, 1980 Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (04/25/85)
> 12. If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the > simplest. Think about that for a moment. Things evolve to perform better in their environment. In the case of language, the simpler the language, the better. I am not saying that languages all simplify, just that in most cases, simpli- fication suits the needs of the speakers of the language better. -- gnoL evaD Beware of {msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios, Black ICE nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/25/85)
> You are confusing *capacity* and ability. Humans have a > natural *capacity* to *learn* language, something which no other > animal has ever been demonstrated to have. Humans only actual learn > to speak if they have the motivation, that is other humans to which > to speak must be present. The *real* test of the inborn nature of > language would be to raise a group of children *together* from > infancy, but without *any* contact with adults, and then see if they > invent a language for use among themselves. I seem to remember a news story about twins who developed a language for themselves and didn't learn to speak english until they were five or six. No references - just a vague memory of a possibly apocrophal story.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/26/85)
In article <361@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) writes: > >> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE >> >> >> 18. .... >> The discoverer of Java man later >> acknowledged that Java man was similar to a large gibbon >> [h,i] and that he had withheld evidence to that effect >> [j-m]. >> >> .... >> >> h) ''Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a >> gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons,.... ''...[it >> had] a close affinity with the gibbon group of >> anthropoid apes. ''...This comparison more than >> confirms the opinion of Marcellin Boule, pronounced >> fifteen years ago, that Pithecanthropus may have been >> a large gibbonoid species,....'' [Eugene Dubois, ''On >> the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java >> and Pithecanthropus Erectus,'' MAN, January 1937, pp. >> 1-7.] >> >> Ron Kukuk >> Walt Brown > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this argument saying that Java Man >isn't valid evidence for evolution because it's genetically related to >gibbons and not to man? (Note that it had *"a close affinity with the >gibbon group"*, not that it *was* a gibbon.) The particular group it's >related seems of less importance than the fact that it's genetically >related to *somebody*. I think it's still good evidence for evolution. > >--JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) Not only this but this is another example of outdated science. Look at the date, 1937!! In fact the ideas presented in the article have long been rejected by anthropologists. The entire classification of hominid fossils was revised in the late 60's, using careful, comparitive technique, the old genus Pithecanthropus has in its entiretly been transfered to the single species Homo erectus, which is considered to be man's nearest relative by *all* researchers in the field. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/29/85)
>>> What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from >>> closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes >>> which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? >>> Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that >>> God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution >>> is correct? [SONNTAG] > >>Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning. "Closely related >>species?" Assuming that species are "related," and further that >>some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds >>like you have assumed that which you wish to prove. [SAMUELSON] > How about if we say species that resemble one another in physical > characteristics(i.e. man and apes, or, less controversialy, similar > species of, oh let's say bears) [DAVE FRITZINGER] No, no, no. That would involve looking at and thoroughly examining existing evidence to draw conclusions, rather than getting the gospel truth from a book. What a ridiculous idea! -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/05/85)
> In the case of language, the simpler the language, the better. I am > not saying that languages all simplify, just that in most cases, > simplification suits the needs of the speakers of the language better. Speak person say untruth. Uncomplicate talk ungood for speak people. Uncomplicate talk doubleplus good for thinkpol. -- allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/05/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING.
22. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in
the assumed evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the
Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks were found in
rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e].
a) Walter E. Lammerts has published three lists
documenting 69 wrong-order formations, just in the
United States: ''Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order
Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United
States: Parts I-III,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY
QUARTERLY, Volume 21; September 1984, p. 88, December
1984, p. 150, and March 1985, p. 200.
b) A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Occurrence of Microflora in
the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,''
NATURE, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796-797.
c) A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Spores and Tracheids from
the Cambrian of Kashmir,'' NATURE, Vol. 169, 21 June
1952, pp. 1056-1057.
d) J. Coates ET. AL., ''Age of the Saline Series in the
Punjab Salt Range,'' NATURE, Vol.155, 3 March 1945,
pp. 266-267.
e) Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, ''A Horse from the
Dinosaur Epoch?'', MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA (Moscow Truth),
5 February 1984.
23. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase
practically all fossils, were laid down through water.
24. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death
and burial of animal and plant life by a catastrophic
flood; it is not evidence of slow change.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/07/85)
> 22. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in > the assumed evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the > Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks were found in > rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e]. Wow! Now we got prehistoric blacksmiths! What will thet think of next. ---- "That's a joke, son." Foghorn Leghorn
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/07/85)
In article <349@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > >B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 22. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in > the assumed evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the > Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks were found in > rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e]. > a) Walter E. Lammerts has published three lists > documenting 69 wrong-order formations, just in the > United States: ''Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order > Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United > States: Parts I-III,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY > QUARTERLY, Volume 21; September 1984, p. 88, December > 1984, p. 150, and March 1985, p. 200. Here we have some fascinating creationist thinking. Overthrusts satisfactorily explain wrong-order formations. There are numerous examples in the literature where overthrusts are supported by slippage planes of damaged rock, and have clearly delineated beginnings and ends. If creationists can present evidence that a wrong-order formation is not an overthrust, where is it? How do creationists explain wrong-order formations in terms of hydraulic sorting and their other proposed mechanisms? > b) A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Occurrence of Microflora in > the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,'' > NATURE, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796-797. > c) A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Spores and Tracheids from > the Cambrian of Kashmir,'' NATURE, Vol. 169, 21 June > 1952, pp. 1056-1057. > d) J. Coates ET. AL., ''Age of the Saline Series in the > Punjab Salt Range,'' NATURE, Vol.155, 3 March 1945, > pp. 266-267. And what do these say? > e) Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, ''A Horse from the > Dinosaur Epoch?'', MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA (Moscow Truth), > 5 February 1984. No, no, the National Enquirer's space aliens made the footprints! Seriously, newspaper's are not reliable sources for scientific information. It is also quite possible that there was a dinosaur that left hoof-like footprints. Let's see some followup on this in scientific journals before taking it too seriously. > 23. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase > practically all fossils, were laid down through water. As is the case today. So? > 24. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death > and burial of animal and plant life by a catastrophic > flood; it is not evidence of slow change. If this was true, the ark wouldn't have needed a flood to float: it could have floated on the layer of animals, plants, etc. that would have to have covered the earth to explain the numbers of fossils. Not to mention that the earth must have had soil thousands of feet thick, and the flood waters must have had the consistency of mud to generate all the fossil bearing sedimentary rock in the world today. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/08/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
25. If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, HAD OXYGEN
in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would
have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been NO
OXYGEN, then there would have been no ozone in the upper
atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly
destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation [a,b]. The
only way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to
come into existence simultaneously. In other words,
Creation!
a) Duane T. Gish, SPECULATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO
THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, ICR Technical
Monograph No.1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research, 1972).
b) Francis Hitching, THE NECK OF THE GIRAFFE: WHERE
DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
Fields, 1982), p. 65.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownpadraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/09/85)
> > 25. If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, HAD OXYGEN > in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would > have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been NO > OXYGEN, then there would have been no ozone in the upper > atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly > destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation [a,b]. The > only way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to > come into existence simultaneously. In other words, > Creation! Who says uv rays will destroy all life? That uv rays can get everywhere to do their nasty work? It cracks me up to see a creationist present this argument since it is well known that uv rays can cause skin cancers ... illnesses where mutated cells reproduce abnormally. So the dubious mechanism for killing life turns out to be that for increasing its variety! Padraig Houlahan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/09/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > 22. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in > the assumed evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the > Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks were found in > rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e]. More tracks. So, they're horse-shoe shaped. What makes you think they ARE horse tracks? Do you have corroborating evidence? Find any bones? > a) Walter E. Lammerts has published three lists > documenting 69 wrong-order formations, just in the > United States: ''Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order > Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United Most of these already have reasonable explanations, see: 'Presumed Overthrusts' > 23. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase > practically all fossils, were laid down through water. So? > 24. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death > and burial of animal and plant life by a catastrophic > flood; it is not evidence of slow change. By SEVERAL catastrophes most likely, not 'a catastrophic flood'. There is evidence of a recurring catastrophe that has occured at 26 million year intervals. Not assumed to be a flood, though flooding could certainly be involved. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/09/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
26. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts
to explain how just one single protein could form from any
of the assumed atmospheres of the early earth. The
chemistry of the earth's rocks indicates that these
atmospheres never existed [a-c]. Furthermore, the
necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the
opposite direction from that required by evolution [d].
Each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat,
electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would have
destroyed the protein products tens of thousands of times
faster than they could be formed [e-g].
a) Charles F. Davidson, ''Geochemical Aspects of
Atmospheric Evolution,'' PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Vol.53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194-
1205.
b) Steven A. Austin, ''Did the Early Earth Have a
Reducing Atmosphere?,'' ICR IMPACT, No.109, July 1982.
c) ''In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary
distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron,
that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time
during the span of geological history recorded in well
preserved sedimentary rocks.'' [Erich Dimroth and
Michael M. Kimberley, ''Precambrian Atmospheric
Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of
Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,'' CANADIAN JOURNAL
OF EARTH SCIENCES, Vol13, No. 9, September 1976, p.
1161.]
d) ''I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that
confronts us--the weakest link at present in our
argument.'' [George Wald, ''The Origin of Life,''
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol.190, August 1954, p. 50.]
e) Michael Pitman, ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider,
1984), pp. 140.
f) Gish, SPECULATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THEORIES
ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
g) Duane T. Gish, ''Gish Debates Russell Doolittle at
Iowa State,'' ACTS AND FACTS, Vol.9, No.12, December
1980, p. 2.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/09/85)
In article <350@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 25. If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, HAD OXYGEN > in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would > have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been NO > OXYGEN, then there would have been no ozone in the upper > atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly > destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation [a,b]. The > only way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to > come into existence simultaneously. In other words, > Creation! If Kulak, Brown, and Gish saw their own shadows, would they go back underground? Ultraviolet could be shaded by any rock or clouds, or filtered by water. Thus, any life-forming chemicals could accumulate after production by UV, lightning, or heat. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/11/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 25. If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, HAD OXYGEN > in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would > have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been NO > OXYGEN, then there would have been no ozone in the upper > atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly > destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation [a,b]. The > only way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to > come into existence simultaneously. In other words, > Creation! The error here is that life would be destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation. In fact, it may be this very ultraviolet radiation hastened the chemical reactions necessary for the initial stages of life. It's even possible, I suppose, that these processes are 'no longer in operation today' due to the ultraviolet sheilding of the ozone layer. When conditions such as those described above were simulated in the laboratory, as Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did in 1951, and as many other chemists have done since then, an enormous variety of organic molecules are formed spontaneously: sugars, the amino acids that are the building blocks of protiens, and the nucleotide bases that are the building blocks of DNA. And, these amino acids spontaneously assemble themselves into short proteins, which aggregate into spherical polymers that almost look like cells, and split into smaller spheres when they get too large. See: M. Calvin, "Chemical Evolution" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) R. E. Dickerson, in Scientific American (Sept. 1978) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/12/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
27. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose
by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to
believe that they could ever form a membrane-encased,
self-reproducing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no
evidence that there are any stable states between the
assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the
formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever
advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump
in complexity could have occurred--even if the universe
were completely filled with proteins [a].
a) Experts in this field hardly ever discuss this matter
publicly. However, the leading evolutionists in the
world know that this problem exists. For example, in
an approved transcript of a taped interview with
Dr.David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History
in Chicago, Luther D. Sunderland commented to Dr.Raup
that ''Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum of
Natural History] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American
Museum of Natural History] could give me any
explanation of the origination of the first cell.''
Dr. Raup replied, ''I can't either.''
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/13/85)
In article <349@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR > WISHFUL THINKING. > > 22. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in > the assumed evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the > Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks were found in > rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e]. Horse*shoe* shaped?!?! This is horribly ambiguous! I would expect actual horse prints to be horse *hoof* shaped not horse*shoe* shaped, and there is a slight difference. Also, as has already been pointed out, tracks are in general poor evidence without associated skeletal remains, since prints made by differtent organisms are often quite similar. Truly validated out-of-sequence fossils may indicate one of several things. If the "error" is not too great it may only mean that some specific evolutionary sequence was deduced incorrectly. Only if it is a really large error is it really evidence against evolution. There is however another danger here, with trace fossils and fragmentary fossils it is *very* easy to become confused as to the true nature of the fossil, especially if one has some preconcieved notion about what to expect. This is why reports of this kind must be closely reviewed by several workers before they can be accepted. > > 23. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase > practically all fossils, were laid down through water. So what! I see no significance to this statement. > > 24. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death > and burial of animal and plant life by a catastrophic > flood; it is not evidence of slow change. > This is totally false. The type of sedimentation seen in a flood is well known and fully characterized by geologists. The type of sedimentation seen in most sedimentary rocks does not even come close to matching the flood pattern. In order for a flood to have produced the kinds of sediments actually seen in the geological column the laws of physics would have to have been *radically* changed. In fact there *are* a number of recognized fossil flood remnants which show the typical flood sedimentation pattern, but they are *far* from being universal in extent. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/13/85)
In article <350@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 25. If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, HAD OXYGEN > in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would > have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been NO > OXYGEN, then there would have been no ozone in the upper > atmosphere. Without this ozone life would be quickly > destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation [a,b]. The > only way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to > come into existence simultaneously. In other words, > Creation! > > a) Duane T. Gish, SPECULATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO > THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, ICR Technical > Monograph No.1 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation > Research, 1972). This contradicts the experimental results I am familiar with. The Urey experiments and the subsequent embelishments of it in fact show that UV *promotes* the formation of organic compounds. So in fact ozone is not in any way necessary for life. Dr. Gish simply does not know what he is talking about here, or more likely he has chosen to ignore a large body of research which contradicts his premises. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/14/85)
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE This would seem to be a creationist effort to win the debate by filibuster, i.e. the one who talks the longest wins. > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. I'll believe it when I see it. > 26. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts > to explain how just one single protein could form from any > of the assumed atmospheres of the early earth. The > chemistry of the earth's rocks indicates that these > atmospheres never existed [a-c]. Furthermore, the > necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the > opposite direction from that required by evolution [d]. > Each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, > electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would have > destroyed the protein products tens of thousands of times > faster than they could be formed [e-g]. Ancient Precambrian rocks are rich in unoxidized iron compounds that could not have been formed in the presence of oxygen. See: P.E. Cloud, "Cosmos, Earth, and Man" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), also "Scientific American" September 1978. Again, let us note that evolution does not necessarily encompass how the whole process started, just the fact that it is going on. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/15/85)
In article <353@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 27. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose > by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to > believe that they could ever form a membrane-encased, > self-reproducing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no > evidence that there are any stable states between the > assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the > formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever > advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump > in complexity could have occurred--even if the universe > were completely filled with proteins [a]. Do I really have to cite the Urey/Miller/Stanley experiments AGAIN. Not only have proteins been induced to form spontaneously in conditions simulating the ancient enveironment, but it is *easy* to do so. In fact the conditions for forming simple polypeptides are so loose it is almost inevetible that they would form. Then of course there are all the various spontaneous membrane systems that have also been demonstrated, in fact bipolar lipids *always* form closed membrane systems. > > a) Experts in this field hardly ever discuss this matter > publicly. However, the leading evolutionists in the > world know that this problem exists. For example, in > an approved transcript of a taped interview with > Dr.David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History > in Chicago, Luther D. Sunderland commented to Dr.Raup > that ''Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum of > Natural History] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American > Museum of Natural History] could give me any > explanation of the origination of the first cell.'' > Dr. Raup replied, ''I can't either.'' > Besides being out of context, these experts are experts on the fossil record and the theory of biological evolution, *not* experts on the origin of life, which is a biochemical problem, thus they cannot really be expected to be up-to-date on the origin problem. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/15/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
28. If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so
is thought. Your thoughts--such as what you are now
thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence of
accidents and therefore would have no validity [a-c].
Similar problems have been acknowledged by several
prominent writers.
a) ''But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man,
which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a
mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals,
be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I
cannot pretend to throw the least light on such
abstruse problems.'' [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE AND
LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin,
(London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 313.]
b) ''For if my mental processes are determined wholly by
the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to
suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound
chemically, but that does not make them sound
logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my
brain to be composed of atoms.'' [Professor J.B.S.
Haldane, POSSIBLE WORLDS (London: Chatto & Windus,
1927), p. 209.]
c) ''If the solar system was brought about by an
accidental collision, then the appearance of organic
life on this planet was also an accident, and the
whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so,
then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--the
accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And
this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and
astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their
thoughts--i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy--are
merely accidental by-products, why should we believe
them to be true? I see no reason for believing that
one accident should be able to give me a correct
account of all the other accidents.'' [C.S. Lewis, GOD
IN THE DOCK (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp.
52-53.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/15/85)
> 28. If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so > is thought. Your thoughts--such as what you are now > thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence of > accidents and therefore would have no validity [a-c]. > Similar problems have been acknowledged by several > prominent writers. Say what? If we're the products of accidents, our thoughts would have no validity? You wouldn't mind providing us with the reasoning behind this apparent non-sequitor? (I looked at references [a-c] for this, but all they were was a bunch of old guys saying the same thing without providing the reasoning either.) Without the reasoning behind it (which would be interesting, using logical reasoning to show that logical reasoning is invalid. <goedel spinning in his grave>) the statement sounds suspiciously like: 'Without God, my life would have no meaning.' I asked before, Ron, to please skip over the arguements in your list which are so obviously invalid. I guess you weren't listening. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I said, 'Doc, a world war passed through my brain.' He said, 'Nurse, grab your pad, the boy's insane.'"-Dylan
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/16/85)
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <356@iham1.UUCP>: > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE >[...] > 28. If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so > is thought. Your thoughts--such as what you are now > thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence of > accidents and therefore would have no validity [a-c]. > Similar problems have been acknowledged by several > prominent writers. >[...] > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown This thing really ought to go to net.jokes, Subject: Yet Another Are These Guys For Real. *THIS* is part of a *scientific* case for creation?!?!?!?! It's not only totally lacking logic, it's absolutely irrelevant. It's an emotional appeal only. It doesn't even refute evolution, let alone support creationism. Get real, fellows. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/19/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the
sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is
common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The
results of this study seriously contradict the predictions
of the theory of evolution [a-d].
a) Personal communication from Robert Bayne Brown.
b) Ginny Gray, ''Student Project 'Rattles' Science Fair
Judges,'' ISSUES AND ANSWERS, December 1980, p. 3.
c) Robert Bayne Brown, ABSTRACTS: 31ST INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FAIR (Washington D.C.: Science
Service, 1980), p. 113.
d) Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific
Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British
Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on
November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the
American Museum of Natural History, he presented some
new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins
of a number of animals. The relationships of these
animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been
taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson
pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data
contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words,
''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and
the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he
acknowledged that scientific falsification is never
absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he
now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he
had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed
truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only
conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti-
knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to
systematics [the science of classifying different
forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist
Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape
Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5
Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see
Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution?
Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108,
June 1982.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/20/85)
> 29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the > sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is > common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The > results of this study seriously contradict the predictions > of the theory of evolution [a-d]. You wouldn't mind telling us a few details about this, would you, Ron? Like, maybe, what the results of this study were, and how it contradicts the predictions of the theory of evolution? Without these details, item #29 here is simply another unsupported statement. I'm usually willing to accept things like: 'These guys did this study and got these results, which, as you can see, contradict the predictions made by evolution.' (unless I've got good reason to doubt their results, like they're contradictory to many other studies.) But there's no way I'm going to accept something like: 'These guys did this study, got some results, and interpret them as contradicting the predictions of the theory of evolution. And by the way, I'm not going to tell you what the study was about or what their results were or just what points of the theory of evolution are contradicted.' And no, I'm not going down run down to the library to look up the references for the answers to these questions. If you're trying to convince us, that's your job. Though it seems likely that *if* the answers to these questions, when analyzed objectively, were supportive of your position, you would have included them in your origional posting. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Time has passed, and now it seems that everybody's having those dreams. Everybody sees himself walking around with no one else." - Dylan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/20/85)
In article <356@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 28. If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so > is thought. Your thoughts--such as what you are now > thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence of > accidents and therefore would have no validity [a-c]. > Similar problems have been acknowledged by several > prominent writers. First error, in evolutionary theory chance plays only a *limited* role, selection is *not* a chance process, it is an organizing principle, thus the rest does not follow. > > a) ''But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, > which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a > mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, > be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I > cannot pretend to throw the least light on such > abstruse problems.'' [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE AND > LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin, > (London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 313.] > b) ''For if my mental processes are determined wholly by > the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to > suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound > chemically, but that does not make them sound > logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my > brain to be composed of atoms.'' [Professor J.B.S. > Haldane, POSSIBLE WORLDS (London: Chatto & Windus, > 1927), p. 209.] > c) ''If the solar system was brought about by an > accidental collision, then the appearance of organic > life on this planet was also an accident, and the > whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, > then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--the > accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And > this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and > astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their > thoughts--i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy--are > merely accidental by-products, why should we believe > them to be true? I see no reason for believing that > one accident should be able to give me a correct > account of all the other accidents.'' [C.S. Lewis, GOD > IN THE DOCK (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. > 52-53.] > On the rest of this maybe you should review the recent discusion of free-will in net.philosophy which debated this whole issue quite extensively. The main result was that there are many opinions on the issue and very few definitive statements. Some foloowed b) above, others saw physical determinism and free-will as being compatible and others followed CS Lewis. But *nobody* had any actual scientific evidence as to which point of view was correct. Thus the syllogism breaks down because one of its premises is questionable as to its validity. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/22/85)
In article <359@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the > sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is > common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The > results of this study seriously contradict the predictions > of the theory of evolution [a-d]. > > d) Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific > Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British > Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on > November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the > American Museum of Natural History, he presented some > new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins > of a number of animals. The relationships of these > animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been > taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson > pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data > contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, > ''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and > the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he > acknowledged that scientific falsification is never > absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he > now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he > had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed > truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only > conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti- > knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to > systematics [the science of classifying different > forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist > Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape > Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 > Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see > Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution? > Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108, > June 1982.] > There is a basic falacy here. Evidence against a particular phylogenetic hypothesis, even a widely accepted is a *far* cry from evidence against evolutionary theory. The overall theory makes predictions about *mechanisms* of change, not about particular changes. Any given phylogeny is a hypothesis about particular that appear resonible and are supported by available evidence. Given that the results in the sequencing study are as unexpected as claimed, they need to be replicated by other scientists, and then carefully examined as to thier significance to current phylogenetic hypotheses. P.S: (Many of these studies suffer from "small sample" problems and must be evaluated with considerable care - I am talking about too few distinct species being included in most sequencing studies. If you want a discourse on the statistical reasoning behind this I will post it). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/23/85)
> >> [Jeff Sonntag] >> No half-developed eyes? Numerous single-cell animals have >> half-developed eyes. Some multi-cellular animals have *very* simple eyes. > >> [Keith Doyle] >> Depends on how you look at it. All species appear half developed, depending >> on what you think they are developing toward. >[Paul DuBois] >I think that neither of these statements is worthy of serious >consideration until they are given some support. (For instance, Mr. >Sonntag can give the phylogeny of vision. Mr. Doyle can show what >half-developed visual structures turn into.) What I was trying to say, is that the human eye can be considered a half-developed-eye if you consider it is only on its way to becoming an even higher developed eye through evolution. (maybe man of the year 20,000 will have X-RAY eyes and/or telescopic vision! :-) >Lisa J Shawver, "Trilobite eyes: An impressive feat of early evolution". >Science News, 105(5), 2 Feb 1974. > >"Although extinct for more than 300 million years, their fossil remains >indicate that in one respect, the trilobites may have been superior to >current living animals. They had, in principle, perfect vision: They >possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature." > >Shawver describes a discovery by Riccardo Levi Setti of the University >of Chicago and the Fermi Institute, who realized that lenses of a >certain class of trilobites were nearly identical to aspheric aplanatic >lenses (lenses which minimize spherical aberration). Levi Setti >arrived at the conviction that "trilobites had solved a very elegant >physics problem and knew about Fermat's principle, Abbe's sine law, >Snell's laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystal." >(This is quoted from his book _Trilobites_.) Of course Levi Setti is >speaking very loosely when he talks about trilobites "knowing", but >we'll pass over that, since evolutionists allow each other to talk >this way. The important point is that these are rather interesting >structures. The article further quotes: "'Nature has developed a >process of optimization, which in this case, produced these incredible >sophisticated shapes,' says Levi Setti. 'It didn't happen by >accident. It proves that evolution can produce this kind of thing >... the lenses look like they were designed by a physicist.'" At the risk of exposing my limited knowledge about trilobites, I will venture a few comments. At this point, evolution directs me to ask several new questions. It would seem, that some powerful selection criteria may be the answer to the highly developed eyes of the trilobite. Not knowing a heck of a lot about trilobite habits, offhand I would ask such questions as: 1. What do the trilobites eat? If they feed on microscopic or near microscopic organisms, it could be that trilobites with better eyesight had better chances of finding food. 2. What hazards/predators/etc. were trilobites succeptible to? Perhaps they needed special eyesight with profound depth perception and correction to more effectively differentiate minute bits of food from minute bits of poisonous materials or some such thing. 3. What was their environment like? 4. What was their reproduction like? 5. etc. etc. In other words, a highly developed trilobite eye leads me to explore potential environmental and behavioral effects that may have been responsible for a high selection criteria for very good eyesight. The notes about 'knowing' about Fermats theorem, etc. are totally bogus arguments designed to make the discovery LOOK like it was designed by a physicist by comparing it with work of real physicists. You can use that type of argument on anything. If I throw a ball up in the air and it bounces on the ground several times, do you assume that I am an expert in kinetic energy, gravity, etc.? (poor analogy I know) >Keeping these things in mind, thee are some questions that must be >asked: > >In what sense are these eyes "half-developed"? In the sense that they may be on the way to being even more acutely developed eyes, or eyes with different characteristics more useful in a different environment. The fact that they didn't evolve any more dosen't mean they were 'fully evolved' as there is no such thing as 'fully evolved'. Perhaps the next phase could have been a regression to a simpler eye if the highly developed eye became less useful. >What are (were) they developing toward/from? Not knowing much about trilobyte phylogeny, I can't really venture much of an answer on the from, and as for the toward, see above. >Remembering that these were fairly early organisms, what sort of >phylogeny shall one construct to show the development of these >structures? I'm not in a position to venture a guess, as I know effectively zip about what current knowlege of trilobite phylogeny is. I have no reason to believe that there was not some sort of logical progression though, an particularly not in exchange for a 'God magic' alternative. >Yes, it is true that some organisms have *very* simple eyes. But some >early organisms have very unsimple eyes. So statements about >half-developed and simple eyes don't show much *unless* the line of >descent is demonstrated. Well, I don't know about that. It isn't hard to see how a small organism who develops a single light sensitive cell and when using it to move toward the light encounters more food (algae perhaps?) might tend to survive better. And later, an organism with several such cells could begin to form some rudimentary pattern recognition that might allow it to detect sudden movements (of predators perhaps) or single out preffered food specimines etc. I remember an AI program I fooled around with once. It was a very simple pattern recognition program. Over time, it would learn to recognize one of 8 basic shapes. Basically, the input was provided as a string of bits that represented a simple 4x4 cellular array representation of the pattern. The input array was given to a series of 'citizens' who 'voted' on what they thought the correct answer was. After voting, each citizen's future votes were weighted based on the correctness of their vote. After being fed the prospective patterns and voting for several 'generations' the citizenry became quite accurate at detecting all the basic shapes, even imperfect ones. The entire process was quite rudimentary. It is easy for me to see that the 'citizens' could be neurological-type cells using a 4x4 array of light sensitive cells as input. Initially, perhaps there was only a single neruon connected to a single light sensitive cell. As duplicate neuron-cell combinations arose, the neruons could have infuenced each other to the point of becoming a simple system such as described above. This program by the way, uses the AI technique: simulated evolution. Through 'natural selection' the citizenry 'evolve' into an efficient pattern recognition mechanism that can conceivably be extended to a highly complicated 'eye'. Perhaps in the animal, later a clear protective membrane may arise that eventually becomes some sort of lens. If you take it step by step, it is not hard to follow such buildup of complexity. In the case of the trilobite, perhaps this animal had considerably more reason to develop a relatively sophisticated eye then other animals have. It is no reason to think that it couldn't have occured naturally given enough time and the right conditions. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- By the way, while we are talking about the 'argument of design', I have a challenge for the creationists: Give me an example of something that WASN'T designed. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/24/85)
In Message <359@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 29. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the > sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein that is > common to almost all forms of animal and plant life. The > results of this study seriously contradict the predictions > of the theory of evolution [a-d]. > > a) Personal communication from Robert Bayne Brown. > b) Ginny Gray, ''Student Project 'Rattles' Science Fair > Judges,'' ISSUES AND ANSWERS, December 1980, p. 3. > c) Robert Bayne Brown, ABSTRACTS: 31ST INTERNATIONAL > SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FAIR (Washington D.C.: Science > Service, 1980), p. 113. > d) Dr. Colin Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific > Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British > Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on > November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the > American Museum of Natural History, he presented some > new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins > of a number of animals. The relationships of these > animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been > taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson > pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data > contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, > ''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and > the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he > acknowledged that scientific falsification is never > absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he > now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he > had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed > truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only > conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti- > knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to > systematics [the science of classifying different > forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist > Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape > Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 > Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see > Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution? > Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108, > June 1982.] > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown You boys are going to get real SOMEday, right? What the h*ll kind of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is this crap?!?! "Somebody else (a "Prominent British Scientist" no less!) says that there's a prediction made by a theory and there's data that contradicts it." Well what the h*ll is the prediction, and what the h*ll is the data, and why the h*ll does the unspecified data contradict the unspecified prediction?!?!?!?! If you really do have evidence, then post it. But direct the above garbage to /dev/null. Get it out of here. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/26/85)
> > Museum of Natural History. In a talk he gave on > > November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the > > American Museum of Natural History, he presented some > > new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins > > of a number of animals. The relationships of these > > animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been > > taught in classrooms for many decades. Dr. Patterson > > pointed out to a stunned audience that this new data > > contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, > > ''The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and > > the prediction is falsified precisely.'' Although he > > acknowledged that scientific falsification is never > > absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he > > now realized that ''evolution was a faith,'' that he > > had ''been duped into taking evolution as revealed > > truth in some way,'' and ''that evolution not only > > conveys no knowledge but seems to convey anti- > > knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to > > systematics [the science of classifying different > > forms of life].'' [''Prominent British Scientist > > Challenges Evolution Theory,'' Audio Tape > > Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 > > Griffin Drive, Apalachin, New York 13732. Also see > > Luther D. Sunderland and Gary E. Parker, ''Evolution? > > Prominent Scientist Reconsiders,'' ICR IMPACT, No.108, > > June 1982.] > > You boys are going to get real SOMEday, right? What the h*ll kind of > SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is this crap?!?! "Somebody else (a "Prominent > British Scientist" no less!) says that there's a prediction made by a > theory and there's data that contradicts it." Well what the h*ll is > the prediction, and what the h*ll is the data, and why the h*ll does > the unspecified data contradict the unspecified prediction?!?!?!?! If > you really do have evidence, then post it. But direct the above > garbage to /dev/null. Get it out of here. > Actually, we've been through this before in this newsgroup. The quoted evidence is that the biochemical affinities of snakes (and lizards), alligators and birds showed that the birds were slightly more closely related to the alligators than the two groups of reptiles were to each other. I'm sorry to say that I don't remember the exact experiments quoted. The statement that this contradicts evolutionary predictions is one of those lovely flights of fancy that enliven this newsgroup. The above is just what one would expect after perusing (for example) Colbert's "Evolution of the Vertebrates". If one wants to be picky, take an early edition that predated any of the biochemical work. It doesn't make much difference. I don't know much about Patterson, but the way he's quoted in this newsgroup makes him sound like a complete bozo. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (05/26/85)
ince I have just recently entered the net I have missed all of the articles on the Scientific Case for Creation. If anyone out there has collected them, would you please forward them by mail. Many Thanx D.Katz
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/28/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
32. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two
forms that are chemically equivalent: about half can be
described as ''right-handed'' and the other half as
''left-handed'' (a structural description--one is the
mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules
found in virtually all forms of life, including plants,
animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the
left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that
chance processes could produce JUST ONE tiny protein
molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually
zero [a,b].
a) James F. Coppedge, EVOLUTION: POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE?
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp.
71-79.
b) ''Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the
source of the variations needed to fuel evolution,
there is an enormous probability problem at the core
of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been
cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals.
Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who
have looked without prejudice at the notion of such
variations producing ever more complex organisms have
come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are
assuming the impossible. ''Even if we take the
simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce
itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds
against this developing by chance range from one in
10**450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in ANALYTICAL
CHEMISTRY) to one in 10**600 (Frank Salisbury in
AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER).'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE
PEDDLERS: SELLING EVOLUTION (New York: Macmillan,
1984), p. 196.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (05/31/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
33. The simplest form of life consists of about 600 different
protein molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST
ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the
proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. [a] (The
magnitude of the number 10**527 can begin to be
appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is
about 10**28 inches in diameter.)
a) James F. Coppedge, EVOLUTION: POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE?
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp.
71-72.
34. There are many instances where quite different forms of
life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples
include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp [a,b], the yucca
plant and the pronuba moth [c], many parasites and their
hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even
the members of the honeybee family, consisting of the
queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one
member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as
the plant before the animal or one member of the honeybee
family before another), it could not have survived. Since
all members of the group obviously have survived, they
must have come into existence at essentially the same
time.
a) Oscar L. Brauer, ''The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its
Production,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY,
Vol.9, No.2, September 1972, pp. 129-131.
b) Bob Devine, MR. BAGGY-SKIN LIZARD (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1977), pp. 29-32.
c) Devine, pp. 17-20.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/31/85)
In article <140@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >Actually, we've been through this before in this newsgroup. The quoted >evidence is that the biochemical affinities of snakes (and lizards), >alligators and birds showed that the birds were slightly more closely >related to the alligators than the two groups of reptiles were to each >other. I'm sorry to say that I don't remember the exact experiments >quoted. The statement that this contradicts evolutionary predictions is one >of those lovely flights of fancy that enliven this newsgroup. The above is >just what one would expect after perusing (for example) Colbert's >"Evolution of the Vertebrates". If one wants to be picky, take an early >edition that predated any of the biochemical work. It doesn't make much >difference. I don't know much about Patterson, but the way he's quoted in >this newsgroup makes him sound like a complete bozo. > Actually, in addition to being wrong about the predictions made by systematicists about these relationships, there is another fundamental error in the Creationists treatment of this. This is the confusion between evolutionary theory, which is a theory about *mechanisms*, with a particular phylogenetic hypothesis(or concept of the origin of some group(s)). While the latter depends upon the former, the first does *not* depend on the latter, particular phylogenetic concepts can be(and often are) changed without any harm to evolutionary theory. So an argument of this sort has *no* bearing on the validity of evolution. A double flight of fantasy therefor. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (06/01/85)
Gee, this is fun! Let's play "what's wrong with this picture?" > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 33. The simplest form of life consists of about 600 different > protein molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST > ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the > proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. True. Uh, how does this relate to evolution, since evolution does not assert that (current) life forms spontaneously self-assemble? > 34. There are many instances where quite different forms of > life are completely dependent upon each other. Also true. And it's even relevant. It just doesn't supply enough evidence to justify much of a conclusion. Consider rock bridges (common out west, and featured in much scenic photography). Each half of the span depends on the other half. Nevertheless, natural forces account for their formation quite adequately. Since the observation of current interdependanceies is not accompanied with evidence that precludes the analogous biological developments, the point is worthless. > TO BE CONTINUED (sigh) > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown I wasn't interested in this interesting accumulation of pseudo-science and didn't follow these entertaining postings until recently. However, having done it once now, I note that the game of finding the problems in these postings is too easy. I propose the related but far more difficult task of finding anything accurate and relevant in this series. I must admit I haven't found anything yet. Has anybody else? -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/01/85)
In article <366@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes still more trivial and inaccurate criticisms: > > 33. The simplest form of life consists of about 600 different > protein molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST > ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the > proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. [a] (The > magnitude of the number 10**527 can begin to be > appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is > about 10**28 inches in diameter.) The simplest forms that we recognize as life TODAY may have that many proteins: but it has long been supposed that first life forms were simpler. Thus, the probability you claim is ridiculously small. > 34. There are many instances where quite different forms of > life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples > include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp [a,b], the yucca > plant and the pronuba moth [c], many parasites and their > hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even > the members of the honeybee family, consisting of the > queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one > member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as > the plant before the animal or one member of the honeybee > family before another), it could not have survived. Since > all members of the group obviously have survived, they > must have come into existence at essentially the same > time. Evolving together from independant organisms to obligate symbiotes is the simple and obvious solution to the problem. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
long@oliveb.UUCP (A Panther Modern) (06/02/85)
In article <366@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: | 33. The simplest form of life consists of about 600 different | protein molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST | ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the | proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. [a] (The | magnitude of the number 10**527 can begin to be | appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is | about 10**28 inches in diameter.) | | a) James F. Coppedge, EVOLUTION: POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE? | (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. | 71-72. | The proper amino acids do not have to come together by chance. If we saw a stone rolling, not knowing which way the slope went, we could say "but the chances that that stone rolls in that direction is only one in an infinite number of other directions." | 34. There are many instances where quite different forms of | life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples | include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp [a,b], the yucca | plant and the pronuba moth [c], many parasites and their | hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even | the members of the honeybee family, consisting of the | queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one | member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as | the plant before the animal or one member of the honeybee | family before another), it could not have survived. Since | all members of the group obviously have survived, they | must have come into existence at essentially the same | time. | | a) Oscar L. Brauer, ''The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its | Production,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, | Vol.9, No.2, September 1972, pp. 129-131. | b) Bob Devine, MR. BAGGY-SKIN LIZARD (Chicago: Moody | Press, 1977), pp. 29-32. | c) Devine, pp. 17-20. | This does not contradict evolution at all. In any of these cases, both species could have evolved into an interdependence relationship. In cases like this, both species could provide something to the other in a way that is easier than the old method of obtaining the something, and so the successful individuals of both species are the ones that can take better advantage of the other species, until both are interdependent. Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
35. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
result of evolution, then an absolutely unbelievable
series of chance events would have had to occur [a,b].
First, the amazingly complex and completely different
reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY and
INDEPENDENTLY evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as
those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in only
one of the two would make both reproductive systems
useless, and natural selection would oppose their
survival. Second, the physical, chemical, and emotional
systems of the male and female would also need to be
compatible. Third, the complex products of the male
reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would need to have
an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical
compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive
system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes
occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg
would have to work with fantastic precision--processes
that scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense.
And finally, the environment of this fertilized egg, from
conception until it also reproduced with another sexually
capable ''brother or sister'' that was also ''accidently''
produced, would have to be controlled to an unbelievable
degree. Either this series of incredible events occurred
by random processes or else an Intelligent Designer
created sexual reproduction.
a) ''This book is written from a conviction that the
prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and
animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary
theory.'' [George C. Williams, Preface, SEX AND
EVOLUTION (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1975), p. v.]
b) ''So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling
answer to the question. Despite some ingenious
suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G.D.
Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of
sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists
believe that the problem will be solved without
abandoning the main Darwinian insights--just as early
nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the
problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome
without major modification of Newton's celestial
mechanics.'' [Philip Kitcher, ABUSING SCIENCE: THE
CASE AGAINST CREATIONISM (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.]
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/03/85)
In article <366@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 33. The simplest form of life consists of about 600 different > protein molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST > ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the > proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527. [a] (The > magnitude of the number 10**527 can begin to be > appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is > about 10**28 inches in diameter.) > This is the most bogus argument yet! Lets see how many fallacies I can find here. First, the simplest *known* life form consists of +/- 600 proteins(if this figure is correct), this does *not*, i repeat *not*, mean that the original, ancestral life form had that many. The second(major) fallacy is that evolution is *not* a chance process except at the very lowest level of analysis. Thus these absurd probability figures mean nothing. The controlling factor here is *selection*, which restricts the set of proteins being operated on to those that have survival potential, thus the probability figures are incorrect. New research!! This argument has been around since long *before* Darwin. In fact, it is one of the early objections to evolution that Darwin's concept of natural selection invalidated, thus making it a viable theory. > > 34. There are many instances where quite different forms of > life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples > include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp [a,b], the yucca > plant and the pronuba moth [c], many parasites and their > hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even > the members of the honeybee family, consisting of the > queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one > member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as > the plant before the animal or one member of the honeybee > family before another), it could not have survived. Since > all members of the group obviously have survived, they > must have come into existence at essentially the same > time. > Another basic fallacy. Your last sentence is true, but it is really just a restatement of the chicken and egg problem. Of course these dependent forms originated "at the same time", this is called co-evolution. The ancestors of these forms were in one-another's environment and thus exerted selective pressure on each other leading to mutual adaption for interaction which eventually(via a number of intermediate forms) become obligatory. Please remember, species are populations *not* individuals. This is also a variant of the "how could a wing evolve" red herring, a feature combination need not have *started* in its current form in order to have evolved. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/06/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)
B. ALL ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTION ARE OUTDATED, ILLOGICAL, OR
WISHFUL THINKING. (See 14-24.)
C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO
COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
IT.
36. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain
physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be
duplicated by the world's best designers using the most
sophisticated technologies. For example, the miniature and
reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and
whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination
system of the bat [a]; the efficiency and aerodynamic
capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems,
internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the
bombardier beetle [b,c]; the precise and redundant
navigational systems of many birds and fish; and the
self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life.
The many components of each complex system could not have
evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage
on the animal. All evidence points to a Designer.
a) ''Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it [the bat] is
millions of times more efficient and more sensitive
than the radars and sonars contrived by man.''
[Michael Pitman, ADAM AND EVOLUTION (London: Rider,
1984), p. 219.]
b) Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Seagraves, THE CREATION
EXPLANATION (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw
Publishers, 1975), pp. 2-9.
c) Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, ''Spray
Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the
Coanda Effect,'' SCIENCE, Vol.215, 1 January 1982, pp.
83-85.
...
II. (Astronomical Sciences):
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (06/06/85)
In article <367@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > 35. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a > result of evolution, then an absolutely unbelievable > series of chance events would have had to occur [a,b]. > First, the amazingly complex and completely different > reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY and > INDEPENDENTLY evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as > those of the female. Since it is becoming more and more clear that you are a copying machine and not a human being, I do not expect that you will admit that this is a reapeat of other arguments on your list. ANd not a very good one either. As has been said before, the number of arguments is unimportant unless some of then are correct. God must have created my legs. You see, it could not be a coincidence that they are just the right length. How else could it be that they are just long enough to reach down to the > However, evolutionary theorists > believe that the problem will be solved without > abandoning the main Darwinian insights--just as early > nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the > problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome > without major modification of Newton's celestial > mechanics.'' [Philip Kitcher, ABUSING SCIENCE: THE > CASE AGAINST CREATIONISM (Cambridge, Massachusetts: > The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.] How exactly does this quote support your point? You are forgeting, perhaps, that the astronomers were RIGHT about the orbit of Uranus. It is accounted for by the existence of the planet Neptune. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl.{ARPA,CSNet} ...seismo \ ...allegra +-- !umcp-cs!cvl!rlh.UUCP ...brl-bmd /
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (06/06/85)
In article <367@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes his most laughable criticism of evolution yet: > > 35. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a > result of evolution, then an absolutely unbelievable > series of chance events would have had to occur [a,b]. The quotes provided show absolutely nothing of the sort. > First, the amazingly complex and completely different > reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY and > INDEPENDENTLY evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as > those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in only > one of the two would make both reproductive systems > useless, and natural selection would oppose their > survival. Sex is though to be VERY old: essentially all eucaryotic organisms have sexual mechanisims which are thought to be homologous. Sex originally probably didn't have male/female distinctions (and doesn't in fungi.) Bacteria have sex: though it may not be homologous with eucaryotic sex. The rest of the above paragraph shows the sort of "incomplete creation" misunderstanding of evolution that creationists are justly ridiculed for. > a) ''This book is written from a conviction that the > prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and > animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary > theory.'' [George C. Williams, Preface, SEX AND > EVOLUTION (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University > Press, 1975), p. v.] This sounds intriguingly like the cost of meiosis problem, which a friend of mine (Dr. Mike Orlove) is working on. The question is: in terms of kin selection, why would an organism want to throw away half its relatedness when forming a gamete? Mike hopes to solve this problem in much the same way as he (and others) solved the problems of kin selection in social insects. > b) ''So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling > answer to the question. Despite some ingenious > suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G.D. > Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no > convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of > sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists > believe that the problem will be solved without > abandoning the main Darwinian insights--just as early > nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the > problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome > without major modification of Newton's celestial > mechanics.'' [Philip Kitcher, ABUSING SCIENCE: THE > CASE AGAINST CREATIONISM (Cambridge, Massachusetts: > The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.] Right. Because fossils of early eucaryotic (or earlier) organisms are entirely unknown, and we don't have extant examples of plausible early sexual organisms. So other theoretical approaches are taken. And the above citation certainly doesn't support creationism or deny evolution. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (06/07/85)
> C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 35. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a > result of evolution, then an absolutely unbelievable > series of chance events would have had to occur [a,b]. > First, the amazingly complex and completely different > reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY and > INDEPENDENTLY evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as > those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in only Sexual reproduction is a much better mechanism than asexual reproduction for combining traits of different members of a species in their offspring. Asexual reproducers basically produce 'clone' offspring, while sexual reproducers combine traits, and via natural selection the combinations with more successful traits pass them on, and combine them with the successful traits of other members of the same species. Asexual reproducers might then, through mutation, achieve 'speciation' (become a different species) more readily than sexual reproducers as they already have reproductive isolation, but sexual reproducers would propogate benifical new mutations throughout the immediate population. As far as how sexual reproduction may have evolved, it would seem possibly to have grown out of some type of hermaphroditism. I'm sure we could think up a variety of plausible scenarios as to how it may have happened, giving it a little thought. Because sexual reproduction can be shown to be more effective at passing greater numbers of successful traits on to more offspring, I don't think there is any particular conflict with evolution here. By the way, I'd still like to know what the creationists think that sexual reproduction is for. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (06/07/85)
> 36. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain > physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be > duplicated by the world's best designers using the most > sophisticated technologies... > ... All evidence points to a Designer. > Here we go again... the old proof by ignorance line. We don't know, we can't do, hence ... Anyone who knew anything about science would be embarrassed to submit this garbage. Truly sad. Padraig Houlahan. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. p.s. I'm beginning to think that they don't even need the rope after all.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/08/85)
In article <367@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 35. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a > result of evolution, then an absolutely unbelievable > series of chance events would have had to occur [a,b]. > First, the amazingly complex and completely different > reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY and > INDEPENDENTLY evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as > those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in only > one of the two would make both reproductive systems > useless, and natural selection would oppose their > survival. > > This is the most absurd argument yet! It is in fact a total strawman argument. NOBODY has EVER seriously proposed the origin of sexuality in anything like the manner discussed here! Of course if this *were* proposed, it would be proper to reject it it on just this basis. The model here can *only* have been proposed in order to have something to attack that is *obviously* incorrect. This, *again*, goes back to co-evolutionary principles. No scientist would make the sexual paradigm of "higher" plants and animals with thier extreme sexual dimorphism and behavioral/sexual specializations as the *ancestral* form of sexuality. Try looking at Protistans, especially those with gametes that are morphologically similar. These forms often show *no* sexual dimorphism and a simple alternation of generations between diploid and haploid individuals, which may also be morphologically similar(i.e. the "gametes" look like the "adults"). The origin of such a system from some sort of optional fusion between genetically similar individuals is *quite* reasonable, and not *nearly* as absurd as the "arise full blown" version of the pamphlet. My goodness, under evolutionary theory *nothing* arises full-blown! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/11/85)
In article <368@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 36. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain > physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be > duplicated by the world's best designers using the most > sophisticated technologies. For example, the miniature and > reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and > whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination > system of the bat [a]; the efficiency and aerodynamic > capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, > internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the > bombardier beetle [b,c]; the precise and redundant > navigational systems of many birds and fish; and the > self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. > The many components of each complex system could not have > evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage > on the animal. All evidence points to a Designer. > Except for the last two sentences there is nothing wrong here, and my response would be "So what?" However, the last bit does not follow from the rest. Remember co-evolution, well this is similar. The components did not necessarily evolve in their present form or for thier present purpose, they merely need to be brought together at a later point. Also, many of your examples *would* be advantagous in a less developed form. For instance crude navigation system is better than none, and any small improvement in such would also be an advantage. All this evidence shows is that efficiency is rewarded! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (06/14/85)
> C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 36. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain > physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be > duplicated by the world's best designers using the most > sophisticated technologies. For example, the miniature and > reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and > whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination > system of the bat [a]; the efficiency and aerodynamic > capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, > internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the > bombardier beetle [b,c]; the precise and redundant > navigational systems of many birds and fish; and the > self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. > The many components of each complex system could not have > evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage > on the animal. All evidence points to a Designer. Well, it looks like we just found some evidence that modern engineers haven't been able to duplicate many of the works of nature. Not surprising, they haven't been at it as long. Again, what are the characteristics of something that has been 'designed'? Complexity? Obscurity? Some evidence of tooling? I suppose you could make a case for the existance of evolution being evidence of design. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/18/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
Many undisputed observations of our solar system contradict
the current theories on how the solar system evolved [a-c].
According to these evolutionary theories:
37. All planets should rotate on their axes in the same
direction, but Venus and Uranus rotate backwards [d,e].
38. All 49 moons in our solar system should revolve in the
same direction, but at least six revolve backwards [d,e].
Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have
moons going in both directions.
39. The orbits of these 49 moons should all lie in the
equatorial plane of the planet they orbit, but many,
including the earth's moon, are in highly inclined orbits
[d].
40. The material of the earth (as well as Mars, Venus, and
Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium--similar
to that of the sun and rest of the visible universe;
actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen
or helium [d,e].
41. The sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than
the planets; in fact, the planets have 200 times more
angular momentum than the sun [d,e].
Intro.
a) ''To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of
the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious
objections. The conclusion in the present state of the
subject would be that the system cannot exist.'' [Sir
Harold Jeffreys, THE EARTH: ITS ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND
PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION, 6th edition (Cambridge England:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), p.387.]
b) ''But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of
planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with
the laws of physics so that we understood how planets
form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate
the probability that other stars have attendant
planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite
the large number of hypotheses suggested.'' [R. A.
Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, 6th edition
(Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.]
c) ''A great array of observational facts must be
explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution
of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent
with the principles of dynamics and modern physics.
All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or
remain unproved, when physical theory is properly
applied.'' [Fred L. Whipple, EARTH, MOON, AND PLANETS
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1970), p. 243.]
37.
d) Donald H. Menzel, ASTRONOMY (New York: Random House,
1970), pp. 178, 198-199.
e) John C. Whitcomb, Jr., THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
(New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co., 1977), p. 16.
38.
d) Laurence A. Soderblom and Torrence V. Johnson, ''The
Moons of Saturn,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January 1982,
p. 101.
e) John Charles Duncan, ASTRONOMY (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1954), p. 481.
39.
d) Duncan, p. 481.
40.
d) VAN NOSTRAND'S SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., 5th edition, 1976), pp. 493-494.
e) ''First, we see that material torn from the Sun would
not be at all suitable for the formation of the
planets as we know them. Its composition would be
hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this
contrast is that it is the Sun that is normal and the
Earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most
of the stars are composed of material like the Sun,
not like the earth. You must understand that,
cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in
is made of the wrong stuff. You, yourself, are a
rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece.'' [Fred
Hoyle, ''The Nature of the Universe,'' Part IV,
HARPER'S MAGAZINE, March 1951, p. 65.]
41.
d) R. A. Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, 6th
edition (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p.
16.
e) Fred Hoyle, THE COSMOLOGY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (Enslow
Publishers, 1979), p. 11-12.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/19/85)
> II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > Finally! I've been waiting so long to see what kind of evidence Ron was going to show us for this absurd proposition! > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. > What's this? He's not going to present evidence for this absurd proposition? Apparently he's going to go this route: 'If current theories concerning the origin of the solar system can't explain absolutely everything then the only alternative is that it was created. Recently.' It's obvious that this is a total non-sequitor. Since any reasonable person would be too embarassed to post such idiocy, we have gained further insight into the warped and bizarre nature of creationist 'reasoning'. > Many undisputed observations of our solar system contradict > the current theories on how the solar system evolved [a-c]. > According to these evolutionary theories: > 38. All 49 moons in our solar system should revolve in the > same direction, but at least six revolve backwards [d,e]. > Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have > moons going in both directions. > > 39. The orbits of these 49 moons should all lie in the > equatorial plane of the planet they orbit, but many, > including the earth's moon, are in highly inclined orbits > [d]. The references given for these statements correctly state which direction various bodies rotate in, I'm sure. But where do they say that the moons and planets 'should' rotate in the same directions, or that all orbital planes should coincide exactly with equatorial planes? Can you say 'asteroid capture' or 'near miss'?? Also, the statement (39) as given, is false. 'Many [of the moons] are in highly inclined orbits.' Not unless one considers 10 degrees or less to be 'highly inclined'. > > 40. The material of the earth (as well as Mars, Venus, and > Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium--similar > to that of the sun and rest of the visible universe; > actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen > or helium [d,e]. This is rich. I'm willing to bet that this is a deliberate lie. No current theory for the origion of the solar system that I've ever heard of suggests that the composition of the earth should be nearly all hydrogen and helium. Just how do you suggest that a planet the size (or mass) of the earth formed mostly of hydrogen would be prevented from outgassing nearly all of the hydrogen very quickly? To suggest that real physicists propound such an untenable and ridiculous hypothesis and to expect that we'll blindly believe you is very nearly as stupid as it is dishonest. Oh, and as to the reference which apparently goes with this: > e) ''First, we see that material torn from the Sun would > not be at all suitable for the formation of the > planets as we know them. Its composition would be > hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this > contrast is that it is the Sun that is normal and the > Earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most > of the stars are composed of material like the Sun, > not like the earth. You must understand that, > cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in > is made of the wrong stuff. You, yourself, are a > rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece.'' [Fred > Hoyle, ''The Nature of the Universe,'' Part IV, > HARPER'S MAGAZINE, March 1951, p. 65.] It states that most of the material which exists in the universe is mostly hydrogen, helium, etc., in plasma phase, and that very little of the material in the universe is composed of heavier elements at cooler temperatures. True enough. This would be puzzling if not for the existance of obvious mechanisms for concentrating heavy elements (formed during previous stellar generations) into the planets of a forming solar system. In fact, only the very largest planets should be capable of retaining very much hydrogen or helium at all as a gas. > > d) R. A. Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, 6th > edition (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. > 16. And in order to show that current theories don't explain everything, Ron feels a need to dig out 17 year old texts to find 'current' theories to debunk! Not too suprising. You missed another piece of evidence for the youth of the universe which is every bit as good as the others, Ron. 42.) According to current theories, the earth should be the center of the universe, and everything else should revolve around it. In fact, it isn't. [d,e,x] x) Aristotle. "Only a fool argues with fools." And unless temptation strikes too hard someday, I don't think you'll be hearing too much more from me around here. Bye. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/19/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
42. The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or
gas clouds lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never
condense to form planets [a].
a) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 106.
43. Saturn's rings could not have formed from the
disintegration of a former satellite or from the capture
of external material; the particles in these rings are too
small and too evenly distributed throughout orbits that
are too circular. Therefore, the rings appear to be
remnants of Saturn's creation.
44. Naturalistic theories on the moon's origin are highly
speculative and completely inadequate [a,b]. The moon was
not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the same
material as the earth since its orbital plane is too
highly inclined. Furthermore, the relative abundances of
its elements are too dissimilar from those of the earth
[c]. The moon's circular orbit is also strong evidence
that it was never torn from or captured by the earth [d-
f]. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the earth,
other particles should be easily visible inside the moon's
orbit; none are. If the moon was not pulled from the
earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its
present orbit, and was not captured from outside its
present orbit, only one proposal remains. The moon must
have been created in its present orbit.
a) ''The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be
regarded as highly speculative.'' [Robert C. Haymes,
INTRODUCTION TO SPACE SCIENCE (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1971), p. 209.]
b) ''Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and
lunar scientist, expresses his attitude: 'I do not
know the origin of the moon. I'm not sure of my own or
any other's models. I'd lay odds against any of the
models proposed being correct.''' [John C. Whitcomb
and Donald B. DeYoung, THE MOON (Winona Lake, Indiana:
BHM Books, 1978), p. 50.]
c) Haymes, p. 209.
d) Steidl, pp. 77-79.
e) M. Mitchell Waldrop, ''The Origin of the Moon,''
SCIENCE, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606-607.
f) Frank D. Stacey, PHYSICS OF THE EARTH (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969), pp. 38-39.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownbeth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/20/85)
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <375@iham1.UUCP>: > 43. Saturn's rings could not have formed from the > disintegration of a former satellite or from the capture > of external material; the particles in these rings are too > small and too evenly distributed throughout orbits that > are too circular. Therefore, the rings appear to be > remnants of Saturn's creation. > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown Umm, why exactly did the creator leave "remnants" scattered about? I thought cleanliness was next to godliness. -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/20/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
45. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of
matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related
to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory
explanation for the origin of one must also explain the
origin of the others [a]. Naturalistic explanations have
completely failed.
a) Nathan R. Wood, THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1936, 10th edition).
46. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total
amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part
of it, remains constant. This law states that although
energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not
now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have
verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that
natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently,
energy must have been created by some agency or power
outside of and independent of the natural universe.
47. If the entire universe is an isolated system, then
according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy
in the universe that is available for useful work has
always been decreasing. But as one goes back further in
time, the amount of energy available for useful work would
eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that,
according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains
constant. This is an impossible condition. It therefore
implies that the universe had a beginning.
48. Heat always flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. If the
universe were infinitely old, the temperature throughout
the universe should be uniform. Since the temperature of
the universe is not uniform, the universe is not
infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning
[a].
a) Sir Isaac Newton, source unknown.
49. A further consequence of the Second Law is that when the
universe began, it was in a more organized state than it
is today--not in a highly disorganized state as assumed by
evolutionists and proponents of the Big Bang Theory.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownlonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/22/85)
> > 40. The material of the earth (as well as Mars, Venus, and > > Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium--similar > > to that of the sun and rest of the visible universe; > > actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen > > or helium [d,e]. > > This is rich. I'm willing to bet that this is a deliberate lie. No > current theory for the origion of the solar system that I've ever heard of > suggests that the composition of the earth should be nearly all hydrogen > and helium. The fact that heavier elements exist is one of the strongest arguments for the rather substantial age of the universe, they having been formed out of the lighter elements by nuclear fusion in stars. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIFE IS A TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/22/85)
> 45. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of > matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related > a) Nathan R. Wood, THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE (Grand > Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1936, 10th edition). I strongly reccommend that further postings of this usless collection of outdated speculation be ignored. I personally intend to "n" past the rest of this posting and any replies to it. Direct flames to Kukick. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIFE IS A TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
youngm@utecfa.UUCP (Michael Young) (06/22/85)
> 39. The orbits of these 49 moons should all lie in the > equatorial plane of the planet they orbit, but many, > including the earth's moon, are in highly inclined orbits > [d]. After the Flat Earth Theory, please welcome the Flat Universe Theory !! -- Michael Robert Young University of Toronto Electrical Engineering {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,watmath}!utcsri!utecfa!youngm
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (06/22/85)
Delightful!! Why wasn't this posted to net.jokes? It is much more amusing than anything that has appeared there for months.
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (06/24/85)
Such a collection of nonsense I haven't seen in a while. Where are the
apologists such as DuBois now, in the face of such drivel? What has he
(and any other "creation scientists") to say when they are so embarassed
by their colleagues? More meta-discussions perhaps?
And finally, what does Kukuk actually DO at Bell Labs? I think I'm going
to tell my broker to sell...
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPArck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/24/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
50. The cosmic background radiation is considered by many to
be the major evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory.
However, recent measurements of this radiation above the
earth's atmosphere indicate that it is not consistent with
the Big Bang hypothesis [a-c]. Nor is the abundance of
helium in the universe consistent with the Big Bang [d,e].
Furthermore, if the Big Bang occurred, the universe should
not contain lumpy [f-h] or rotating bodies. Since both
types of bodies are seen [i], it is doubtful that the Big
Bang occurred.
a) H. P. Gush, ''Rocket Measurement of the Cosmic
Background Submillimeter Spectrum,'' PHYSICAL REVIEW
LETTERS, Vol.47, No. 10, 7 September 1981, pp. 745-
748.
b) Kandiah Shivanandan, James R. Houck, and Martin O.
Harwit, ''Preliminary Observations of the Far-Infrared
Night-Sky Background Radiation,'' PHYSICAL REVIEW
LETTERS, 11 November 1968, Vol. 21, pp. 1460-1462.
c) ''Freak Result Verified,'' NATURE, Vol.223, 23 August
1969, pp. 779-780.
d) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 207-208.
e) D.W. Sciama, MODERN COSMOLOGY (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1971), pp. 149-155.
f) Geoffrey Burbidge, ''Was There Really a Big Bang?''
NATURE, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
g) Ben Patrusky, ''Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?'' SCIENCE
81, June 1981, p. 96.
h) ''Deep Redshift Survey of Galaxies Suggests Million-
Mpc**3 Void,'' PHYSICS TODAY, January 1982, Vol. 35,
pp. 17-19.
i) Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson,
''Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of
Galaxies,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 1982, pp. 106-
114.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownkeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (06/25/85)
[..............] > 45. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of > matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related > to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory > explanation for the origin of one must also explain the > origin of the others [a]. Naturalistic explanations have > completely failed. > No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or GOD. Since each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Even non-naturalistic explanations have completely failed. > 46. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total > amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part > of it, remains constant. This law states that although > energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not > now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have > verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that > natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, > energy must have been created by some agency or power > outside of and independent of the natural universe. a) Evolution is not in conflict with this. b) 'some agency or power' does not HAVE to be outside of and independent of the natural universe, just outside of our present awareness. > 48. Heat always flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. If the > universe were infinitely old, the temperature throughout > the universe should be uniform. Since the temperature of > the universe is not uniform, the universe is not > infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning a) Evolution is not in conflict with this. b) Here I must ask a question of the physicists on the net. I've heard of theories that propose that eventually matter may re-compress into a giant black hole after a very long time, and perhaps causing another 'big bang', indicating that the universe explodes and collapses over and over. I'd like to hear more about the present state of these and related theories if anyone out there knows more. > 49. A further consequence of the Second Law is that when the > universe began, it was in a more organized state than it > is today--not in a highly disorganized state as assumed by > evolutionists and proponents of the Big Bang Theory. Again, this has zip to do with evolution. And, I'm not sure it really has anything to do with present 'origin of universe' theories. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "No Smoking or Spitting - The Mgmt."
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/25/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
51. Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies
show them to be highly unstable; they should completely
change their shape in only a small fraction of the assumed
age of the universe [a]. The simplest explanation for why
so many spiral galaxies exist, including our own Milky Way
Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger
than has been assumed.
a) David Fleischer, ''The Galaxy Maker,'' SCIENCE DIGEST,
October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12ff.
52. If the sun, when it first began to radiate, had any
nonnuclear sources of energy, they would have been
depleted in much less that ten million years. Theory [a]
and experiment [b] indicate that today nuclear reactions
are not the predominant energy source for the sun. Our
star, the sun, must therefore be young (less than ten
million years old). If the sun is young, then so is the
earth.
a) A.B. Severny, V.A. Kotov, and T.T. Tsap, NATURE,
Vol. 259, 15 January 1976, pp. 87-89.
b) Paul M. Steidl, ''Solar Neutrinos and A Young Sun,''
in DESIGN AND ORIGINS IN ASTRONOMY, edited by George
Mulfinger, Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research
Society Books, 1983), pp. 113-125.
53. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have
formed from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by
first forming dust particles [a,b] or by direct
gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly
more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious
alternative is that stars were created.
a) Harwit, ASTROPHYSICAL CONCEPTS (New York: John C.
Wiley, 1973), p. 394.
b) ''...there is no reasonable astronomical scenario in
which mineral grains can condense.'' [Sir Fred Hoyle
and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, ''Where Microbes Boldly
Went,'' NEW SCIENTIST, 13 August 1981, p. 413.]
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/26/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE.
54. If stars evolve, we should see about as many star births
as star deaths. The deaths of stars are bright and sudden
events called ''novas'' and ''supernovas.'' Similarly, the
birth of a star should be accomplished by the appearance
of light where none previously existed on the many
photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments
should also be able to detect dust falling into the new
star. We have NEVER seen a star born, but we have seen
thousands of stars die. There is no evidence that stars
evolve [a].
a) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 143-145.
55. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimating the age of
stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a
framework for stellar evolution. This is circular
reasoning [a].
a) Steidl, pp. 134-136.
56. There is no evidence that galaxies evolve from one type to
another [a,b]. Furthermore, if galaxies are billions of
years old, orbital mechanics requires that neither the
arms in spiral galaxies nor the bar in barred spiral
galaxies should have been able to have maintained their
shape [c]. Since they have maintained their shape, either
galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are
occurring within galaxies [d,e].
a) ''There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve
from one type to another at all.'' [George Abell,
EXPLORATION OF THE UNIVERSE, 2nd edition (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969), p. 629.]
b) ''Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the
classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary
sequence, but that all of the galaxies of the sequence
are old. The best evidence available now indicates
that they are all of approximately the same age, at
least all of those near enough to our Galaxy for this
to be estimated.'' [Paul W. Hodge, GALAXIES AND
COSMOLOGY (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966), p.
122.]
c) Hodge, p. 123.
d) Harold S. Slusher, ''Clues Regarding the Age of the
Universe,'' ICR IMPACT, No.19 (El Cajon, CA: Institute
for Creation Research), pp. 2-3.
e) Steidl, pp. 161-187.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownfdf@houxa.UUCP (Franklin Fite) (06/27/85)
> as star deaths. The deaths of stars are bright and sudden > events called ''novas'' and ''supernovas.'' Similarly, the > birth of a star should be accomplished by the appearance > of light where none previously existed on the many > photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments > should also be able to detect dust falling into the new > star. We have NEVER seen a star born, but we have seen > thousands of stars die. There is no evidence that stars > evolve [a]. > > a) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE > (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 143-145. > > > Ron Kukuk The rate at which new stars form in this galaxy is about 20 per year. [b] b) Papagiannis, M., "Sky and Telescope", June 1984, pp 509-510. The author cited above is a professor of astronomy at Boston University. Perhaps the confusion is in saying that we don't "see" new stars being born. Frank Fite Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ ihnp4!houxa!fdf
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/28/85)
In article <379@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. > > 51. Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies > show them to be highly unstable; they should completely > change their shape in only a small fraction of the assumed > age of the universe [a]. The simplest explanation for why > so many spiral galaxies exist, including our own Milky Way > Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger > than has been assumed. > Actually, there is another alternative. Note the following two facts, spiral arms are composed of predominantly hot, rapidly burning stars, and spiral arms contain large amounts of interstellar gas. These points suggest that spiral are are dynamic features, being continually reformed out of newly formed stars. > 52. If the sun, when it first began to radiate, had any > nonnuclear sources of energy, they would have been > depleted in much less that ten million years. Theory [a] > and experiment [b] indicate that today nuclear reactions > are not the predominant energy source for the sun. Our > star, the sun, must therefore be young (less than ten > million years old). If the sun is young, then so is the > earth. > Huh?!?!? *non*nuclear energy sources in the Sun!?!? This has not, as far as I know, been seriously proposed for over half a century! The neutrino deficit merely indicates existing models are incomplete, not that there is a non-nuclear energy source! > > 53. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have > formed from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by > first forming dust particles [a,b] or by direct > gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly > more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious > alternative is that stars were created. > This is true with regard to *simple* models, most modern models, however, postulate shock waves as the triggering mechanism. Nowadays these shock waves come from supernovas, originally they could well have been the shock wave of the Big Bang. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/28/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
57. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written
records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has
operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the
clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed.
These assumptions are almost always unstated or
overlooked.
58. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating
techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been
essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also
been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This
bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even
though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.
Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence that suggests
that radioactive decay has not always been constant but
has varied by many orders of magnitude from that observed
today [a,b].
a) Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New
Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction
and Coalification,'' SCIENCE, Vol.194, 15 October
1976, pp. 315-317.
b) Robert V. Gentry, ''On the Invariance of the Decay
Constant Over Geological Time,'' CREATION RESEARCH
SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.5, September 1968, pp. 83-84.
59. The public has been greatly misled concerning the
consistency, reliability, and trustworthiness of
radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method,
the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium-
Lead method). Many of the published dates can be checked
by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that
sometimes lie above and below radiometrically dated rock.
In over 400 of these published checks (about half), the
radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic
age in error--indicating major errors in methodology. An
unanswered question is, ''How many other dating checks
were NOT PUBLISHED because they too were in error?'' [a,b]
a) John Woodmorappe, ''Radiometric Geochronology
Reappraised,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY,
Vol.16, September, 1979, pp. 102-129.
b) Robert H. Brown, ''Graveyard Clocks: Do They Really
Tell Time?'', SIGNS OF THE TIMES, June 1982, pp. 8-9.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/28/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
60. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated
by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500
years old, is unable to extend this accuracy to date more
ancient organic remains. A few people have claimed that
ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to
be extended even further back in time, but these people
have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the
other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites
worldwide [a,b] indicate that the concentration of
radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some
time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, the
maximum possible radiocarbon age obtainable with the
standard techniques (approximately 50,000 years) could
easily correspond to a TRUE age of 5,000 years.
a) Robert H. Brown, ''Can We Believe Radiocarbon
Dates?'', CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.12,
No.1, June 1975, pp. 66-68.
b) Robert H. Brown, ''Regression Analysis of C-14 Age
Profiles,'' Unpublished Manuscript, 28 July 1980.
61. Radiohalos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the
radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various
crystals, are strong evidence that the earth's crust was
never in a molten state. Based upon the specific patterns
seen in many of these rocks, it appears that these rocks
came into existence almost instantaneously--in other
words, CREATION! [a,b]
a) Robert V. Gentry, '''Spectacle' Array of Po**210 Halo
Radiocentres In Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical
Enigma,'' NATURE, 13 December 1974, pp. 564-566.
b) Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos In Radiochronological
and Cosmological Perspective,'' SCIENCE, 5 April 1974,
Vol. 184, pp. 62-66.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownkeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (06/29/85)
>> A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR >> SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY >> INADEQUATE. >> >> 51. Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies >> show them to be highly unstable; they should completely >> change their shape in only a small fraction of the assumed >> age of the universe [a]. The simplest explanation for why >> so many spiral galaxies exist, including our own Milky Way >> Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger >> than has been assumed. >> > Actually, there is another alternative. Note the following two >facts, spiral arms are composed of predominantly hot, rapidly burning >stars, and spiral arms contain large amounts of interstellar gas. >These points suggest that spiral are are dynamic features, being >continually reformed out of newly formed stars. Is anyone familiar with John Whitney's work 'Digital Harmony'? Some of his experiments show some very interesting features of harmonic inter-relations that could quite easily explain the 'arms'. Here is a simple experiment: write a program that graphs a series of points and then advances them around a circular 'orbit'. Initialize the points so that they are all along a single radius line of the largest orbit 'circle'. Plot the points, then advance each point around it's respective circle an amount related to the radius of the point's particular orbit circle (or inversely proportional if you'd rather). Since each point is traveling at a different speed, the initial radius line will bend around to the point where it will 'wrap' on itself over and over etc. At certain points, the individual points will 'align' in different ways, creating a variety of spiral 'arms' and similar features. These 'arms' are related to the frequency 'beating' of the different points. In fact, eventually, the points will again align themselves to the initial straight line radius pattern. Such arm-like characteristics can come and go at various times throught the lifetime of this experiment. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (06/29/85)
> 56. There is no evidence that galaxies evolve from one type to > another [a,b]. Furthermore, if galaxies are billions of > years old, orbital mechanics requires that neither the > arms in spiral galaxies nor the bar in barred spiral > galaxies should have been able to have maintained their > shape [c]. Since they have maintained their shape, either > galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are > occurring within galaxies [d,e]. I can see that again we can better explain the 'purpose' for galaxies as being required so that man can navigate. Note that the horsehead nebula is actually a signpost pointing directly to the Hawaiian Islands. [a,b] As far as the spiral arms, see my previous posting on John Whitney's 'Digital Harmony' a) ''The horses head itself, seems to be looking directly at the Hawaiian Islands.'' [Malcom Crank, HORSESHIT AND THE HORSEHEAD NEBULA, (New York: Wiley (E. Coyote) and sons, 1982), p.247 Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (06/30/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
62. Geological formations are almost always dated by their
fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of
extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the
assumed evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary
sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is
circular [a-e]. Furthermore, this procedure has produced
many contradictory results [f].
a) ''It cannot be denied that from a strictly
philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing
in a circle. The succession of organisms has been
determined by a study of their remains embedded in the
rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are
determined by the remains of organisms that they
contain.'' [R. H. Rastall, ''Geology,'' ENCYCLOPAEDIA
BRITANNICA, 1954, Vol.10, p. 168.]
b) ''Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand,
that evolution is documented by geology and, on the
other hand, that geology is documented by evolution?
Isn't this a circular argument?'' [Larry Azar,
''Biologists, Help!'' BIOSCIENCE, Vol.28, November
1978, p. 714.]
c) ''The intelligent layman has long suspected circular
reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and
fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never
bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that
explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the
work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-
headed pragmatism.'' [J. E., O'Rourke, ''Pragmatism
Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,'' AMERICAN JOURNAL
OF SCIENCE, Vol.276, January 1976, p. 47.]
d) ''The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date
the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid
this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only
temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in
the derivation of time scales.'' [O'Rourke, p. 53.]
Although O'Rourke attempts to justify current
practices of stratigraphers, he recognizes the
inherent problems associated with this circular
reasoning.
e) ''But the danger of circularity is still present. For
most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the
evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some
theory that entails it. There is another difficulty.
The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the
local section may critically involve paleontological
correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-
repeatability of organic events in geologic history.
There are various justifications for this assumption
but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it
rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary
hypothesis.'' [David B. Kitts, ''Paleontology and
Evolutionary Theory,'' EVOLUTION, Vol.28, September
1974, p. 466.]
f) ''It is a problem not easily solved by the classic
methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously
we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible
circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular
lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its
fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous
on the evidence of the lithology.'' [Derek V. Ager,
THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL RECORD, 2nd edition
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981), p. 68.]
g) See references for items 22 and 64.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/01/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
63. Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-
called ''geologic column.'' [a] In fact, on the
continents, over half of the ''geologic periods'' are
ususally missing, and 15-20% of the earth's land surface
has less than one-third of these periods appearing in the
''correct'' order [b]. Even within the Grand Canyon, over
200 million years of this imaginary column are missing.
Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and
rocks is fallacious.
a) ''We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we
have anything like a complete succession for any part
of the stratigraphical column in any one place.''
[Derek V. Ager, THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL
RECORD, 2nd edition (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1981), p. 32.]
b) John Woodmorappe, ''The Essential Nonexistence of the
Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A
Quantitative Assessment,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY
QUARTERLY, Vol.18, No.1, June 1981, pp. 46-71.
64. Since 1908, human-like footprints have been found
alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of
the Paluxy riverbed in Texas [a-c]. A similar discovery
has occurred in the Republic of Turkmen in the Soviet
Union [d]. Recently, near the Paluxy River, television
cameras have recorded the discovery of what appears to be
new human, dinosaur, and saber-tooth tiger footprints, as
well as a human hand print. This was found underneath
slabs of UNDISTURBED limestone [e]. All of this indicates
that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time AND the same
place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became
extinct about 65 million years before man supposedly began
to evolve. Something is wrong.
a) John Morris, TRACKING THOSE INCREDIBLE DINOSAURS (San
Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1980).
b) Frederick P. Beierle, MAN, DINOSAURS, AND HISTORY
(Perfect Printing, 1977).
c) Roland T. Bird, ''Thunder In His Footsteps,'' NATURAL
HISTORY, May 1939, pp. 254-261, 302. (R. T. Bird was
skeptical that the human-like prints were made by man.
He dismissed the possibility since ''no man had ever
existed in the Age of Reptiles.'' However, he
acknowledged talking with at least a dozen people who
had seen what they called ''man tracks.'')
d) Cr. V. Rubstov, ''Tracking Dinosaurs,'' MOSCOW NEWS,
No. 24, p. 10, 1983.
e) ''Enemies Survived Together for a While,'' 1983, A
video taped documentary prepared by Dr. Carl Baugh,
P.O. Box 309, Glen Rose, TX 76043.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/01/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
65. Many different people have found, at different times and
places, man-made artifacts encased in coal. Examples
include an 8-carat gold chain [a-c], a spoon [b], a
thimble, an iron pot [d], a bell, and other objects of
obvious human manufacture. Many other ''out of place
artifacts'' such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails [a], a
strange coin [c], a doll [c,e], and others [f] have been
found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating
techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of
years old; but man supposedly did not begin to evolve
until 2-4 million years ago. Again, something is wrong.
a) Rene Noorbergen, SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES (New York:
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1977), pp. 40-62.
b) Harry V. Wiant, Jr., ''A Curiosity From Coal,''
CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.13, No.1,
June 1976, p. 74.
c) J. R. Jochmans, ''Strange Relics from the Depths of
the Earth,'' BIBLE-SCIENCE NEWSLETTER, January 1979,
p. 1.
d) Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., ''Human Footprints in Rocks,''
CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, March 1971, pp.
201-202.
e) Frederick G. Wright, ''The Idaho Find,'' AMERICAN
ANTIQUARIAN, Vol.II, 1889, pp. 379-381, as cited by
William R. Corliss in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF
PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook
Project, 1978), pp. 661-662.
f) Frank Calvert, ''On the Probable Existence of Man
During the Miocene Period,'' ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
JOURNAL, Vol.3, 1873, as cited by William R. Corliss
in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen
Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1978), pp.
661-662.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (07/01/85)
I know I said I'd try to stay out of here, but I just couldn't resist taking a few pot shots at Ron and Walt's latest piece of 'evidence' for the scientific theory of creation. Look at this garbage! > 65. Many different people have found, at different times and > places, man-made artifacts encased in coal. Examples > include an 8-carat gold chain [a-c], a spoon [b], a > thimble, an iron pot [d], a bell, and other objects of > obvious human manufacture. Many other ''out of place > artifacts'' such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails [a], a > strange coin [c], a doll [c,e], and others [f] have been > found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating > techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of > years old; but man supposedly did not begin to evolve > until 2-4 million years ago. Again, something is wrong. Wow! The 'scientific' model for creation says that the various coal layers were put down after man had learned to work metal? Howcome you never told us about this before? Did it all just fall from the sky one day, or what? Or did gawd create these artifacts in sutu? (SET SARCASM = OFF) Seriously, I didn't think that even the most rabid bible pounder would consider this evidence for creation unless the 'scientific' creation theory could explain these artifacts. Now either I was wrong, or there's a whole lot more details to your 'theory' that you've been keeping secret from us. Net.origins - that's entertaaaaaaainment! -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/01/85)
> b) Here I must ask a question of the physicists on the net. I've heard > of theories that propose that eventually matter may re-compress into > a giant black hole after a very long time, and perhaps causing another > 'big bang', indicating that the universe explodes and collapses over and > over. I'd like to hear more about the present state of these and related > theories if anyone out there knows more.[KEITH DOYLE] Under the standard accepted theory (General Relativity), the universe may either expand indefinitely or recompress into a black hole, depending on the total amount of matter in the universe. If the total amount is less than or equal to a critical value, expansion will continue forever. Above this value, recompression will occur. Whether or not another big bang will occur after recompression is anybody's guess. The recent "Inflationary Universe" theory, which is not in conflict with General Relativity, predicts that the value is exactly equal to the critical value, hence, indefinite expansion. Also, this theory predicts that our universe is only one of many. The other universes are outside our event horizon, and we can neither observe them or vice-versa. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/02/85)
In article <381@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. > > 54. If stars evolve, we should see about as many star births > as star deaths. The deaths of stars are bright and sudden > events called ''novas'' and ''supernovas.'' Similarly, the > birth of a star should be accomplished by the appearance > of light where none previously existed on the many > photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments > should also be able to detect dust falling into the new > star. We have NEVER seen a star born, but we have seen > thousands of stars die. There is no evidence that stars > evolve [a]. > Actually, only supernovas are star deaths, ordinary novas are just major light bersts that leave the star relatively unchanged. Thus we have *not* seen thousands of star deaths, only a few hundred, and by far most of these were far away, in other galaxies, where we could not expect to see star births at all. In this galaxy we have seen fewer than a dozen supernovas since the dawn of history, thousands of years ago, thus we only need to see a new star every several hundred years, not several per decade, to account for supernovas. Furthermore, we are even now watching several objects which appear to be new stars in formation, and after a few hundred years we should be able to tell if they are in fact destined to become stars. In fact these objects are characterized by the detection of dust/gas falling in to a small compact "nebula". In addition, we have found a number of unusual stars that appear to be new born, including such well known stars as the Pleiedes. > > 55. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimating the age of > stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a > framework for stellar evolution. This is circular > reasoning [a]. > You are leaving out the most important source of concepts about stellar evolution - theoretical physics. Much of the modern theory of stellar evolution is based on mathematical models of the processes in the cores of stars, *not* on estimated ages as this implies. The other main source is the Herzsprung-Russel Diagram, which is a simple graph of "color"/temperature against intrinsic brightness(again not an age estimate). These two sources are then combined to produce age estimates, but *only* of clusters, not of individual stars. Only the Sun is close enough to us to provide enough evidence for an individual age estimate > > 56. There is no evidence that galaxies evolve from one type to > another [a,b]. Furthermore, if galaxies are billions of > years old, orbital mechanics requires that neither the > arms in spiral galaxies nor the bar in barred spiral > galaxies should have been able to have maintained their > shape [c]. Since they have maintained their shape, either > galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are > occurring within galaxies [d,e]. > Agreed, there is no evidence that galaxies evolve from on type to another, and no astronomer today would say otherwise. To repeat myself, spiral arms are held to be dynamic structures, continually reformed by the formation of hot, new stars(this is an alternative not mentioned above - a *known* physical phenomenon) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/02/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS.
66. In rock formations in Utah [a], Kentucky [b], Missouri
[c], and possibly Pennsylvania [d] human-like FOOTPRINTS
that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been
found and examined by different authorities. There
appears to be a drastic error in chronology.
a) Melvin A. Cook, ''William J. Meister Discovery of
Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian
Formation of Western Utah,'' in WHY NOT CREATION?,
edited by Walter E. Lammerts (New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 185-193.
b) ''Geology and Ethnology Disagree About Rock Prints,''
SCIENCE NEWS LETTER, 10 December 1938, p. 372.
c) Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, ''Remarks
on the Prints of Human Feet, Observed in the Secondary
Limestone of the Mississippi Valley,'' AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, Vol.5, 1822, pp. 223-
231.
d) ''Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to
Scientists,'' SCIENCE NEWS LETTER, 29 October 1938,
pp. 278-279.
67. Since there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's
sedimentary strata, the entire geologic record must have
been deposited rapidly. (An UNCONFORMITY is an erosional
surface between two adjacent rock formations representing
a time break of unknown duration.) CONFORMITIES imply a
continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can trace a
continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic
record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments
along that path must have been deposited continuously [a].
a) Henry M. Morris, KING OF CREATION (San Diego: Creation
Life Publishers, 1980), pp. 152-153.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/02/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. Evolution requires an old earth and an old
solar system. Without billions of years, virtually all
informed evolutionists will admit that their theory is dead.
But by hiding the ''origins question'' behind the veil of vast
periods of time, the unsolvable problems of evolution become
difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our
media and textbooks have implied for over a century that this
almost unimaginable age is correct, but practically never do
they examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of
contrary evidence. Therefore, most people instinctively
believe that things are old, and it is disturbing (at least
initially) to hear evidence that our origins are relatively
recent. Actually most dating techniques indicate that the
earth and solar system are young--possibly less than 10,000
years old. Listed below are just a few of these evidences.
68. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium,
from just the decay of uranium and thorium. Detailed
experimentation [a] has shown that there is no known means
by which large amounts of helium can escape from the
atmosphere, even when considering the low atomic weight of
helium. The atmosphere appears to be young [b].
a) ''What Happened to the Earth's Helium?'' NEW
SCIENTIST, Vol.420, 3 December 1964, pp. 631-632.
b) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London:
Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.
69. Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known
rates that increase with temperature. Since these crystals
are found at different depths in the earth, those at
greater depths and temperatures should have less lead.
Even if the earth's crust is just a fraction of the age
that is claimed by evolutionists, there should be a
measurable difference in the lead content of zircons in
the top 4000 meters. Actually, no measurable difference is
found [a,b]. Similar conclusions are reached from a study
of the helium contained in these same zircon crystals [c].
In fact, these helium studies lead to a conclusion that
the earth's crust is only thousands of years old [d].
a) Robert V. Gentry, Thomas J. Sworski, Henry S. McKown,
David H. Smith, R.E. Eby, and W.H. Christie,
''Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications
for Nuclear Waste Containment,'' SCIENCE, 16 April
1982, pp. 296-298.
b) Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,'' PHYSICS TODAY, October
1982, pp. 13-14.
c) Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,'' PHYSICS TODAY, April
1983, p. 13.
d) Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February
1984.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/03/85)
The rn program asks: This program posts news to everyone on the machine. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] y I can't imagine why I answered "y" in this group, but there are idiocies that surpass understanding, here. For example: > 54. If stars evolve, we should see about as many star births > as star deaths. The deaths of stars are bright and sudden > events called ''novas'' and ''supernovas.'' Similarly, the > birth of a star should be accomplished by the appearance > of light where none previously existed on the many > photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments > should also be able to detect dust falling into the new > star. We have NEVER seen a star born, but we have seen > thousands of stars die. There is no evidence that stars > evolve [a]. Some star deaths lead to novae, and some stars go nova several times. But to say we should see star birth by seeing light where none was visible "decades" ago is ridiculous. Star birth is observed in many ways, but most directly by infrared observation of the infalling dust clouds (that "instruments should also be able to detect", and can). See several recent issues of Scientific American, for example. (Or is it on the Index of books prohibited to Creationists?) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
70. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures
within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids
were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If
these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago,
leakage would have dropped the pressure to a level far
below what it is today [a].
a) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London:
Max Parrish, 1966), p. 341.
71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are
entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of
sediment transport was even greater in the past as the
looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the
earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the
sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have
accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the
continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a].
a) Stuart E. Nevins, ''Evolution: The Ocean Says No!''
SYMPOSIUM ON CREATION V (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975),
pp. 77-83.
72. The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level
them in much less than twenty-five million years [a,b].
However, evolutionists believe that the fossils of land
animals and plants that are at high elevations have been
there for over 300 million years.
a) Nevins, pp. 80-81.
b) George C. Kennedy, ''The Origin of Continents,
Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,'' AMERICAN
SCIENTIST, 1959, pp. 491-504.
73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin,
lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering
the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small
quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There
is no known means by which large amounts of these elements
can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans
must be very much younger than a million years.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
74. Meteorites are falling at a fairly steady rate onto the
earth. If this rate of influx has not been constant, it
has probably been decreasing as this meteoritic material
is purged from our solar system. Experts have therefore
expressed surprise that meteorites are only found in
relatively young sediments very near the earth's surface
[a-d]. Even the meteoritic particles in ocean sediments
are also concentrated in the top most layers [e]. If
these sediments, which average about a mile in thickness
on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of
millions of years, as evolutionists believe, many
meteorites should be well below the earth's surface.
Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited
rapidly. Furthermore, since no meteorites are found
immediately above the basement rocks on which these
sediments rest, these basement rocks could not have been
exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of
time.
a) Fritz Heide, METEORITES (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1964), p. 119.
b) Peter A. Steveson, ''Meteoritic Evidence for a Young
Earth,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.12,
June 1975, pp. 23-25.
c) ''Neither tektites nor meteorites have been found in
any of the ancient geologic formations [Mesozoic,
Paleozoic, or Proterozoic].'' [Ralph Stair, ''Tektites
and the Lost Planet,'' THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY, July
1956, p. 11.]
d) ''No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic
column.'' [W. H. Twenhofel, PRINCIPLES OF
SEDIMENTATION, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1950), p. 144]
e) Hans Pettersson, ''Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic
Dust,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol.202, February 1960,
pp. 123-129.
75. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the
earth is such that after five billion years, the
equivalent of over 16 feet of this dust should have
accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there
should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of
the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land
or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be
young [a-c].
a) Henry M. Morris, editor, SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM (San
Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153.
b) Steveson, pp. 23-25.
c) Pettersson, p. 132.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
76. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the
past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its
strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the
theoretical view that there is an electrical current
inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If
this view is correct, then just 25,000 years ago the
electrical current would have been so vast that the
earth's structure could not have survived the heat
produced. This implies that the earth could not be older
than 25,000 years [a].
a) Thomas G. Barnes, ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH'S
MAGNETIC FIELD, 2nd edition (El Cajon, CA: Institute
for Creation Research, 1983).
77. If the earth was initially molten, it would have cooled to
its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years.
This conclusion holds even after one makes liberal
assumptions on the amount of heat generated by radioactive
decay within the earth [a]. The known temperature pattern
inside the earth is only consistent with a young earth.
a) Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, THE AGE OF
THE EARTH: A STUDY OF THE COOLING OF THE EARTH UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF RADIOACTIVE HEAT SOURCES, ICR
Monograph No.7 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research, 1978).
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
78. Since 1754, observations of the moon's orbit indicate that
it is receding from the earth [a]. As tidal friction
gradually slows the earth's spin, the laws of physics
require the moon to recede from the earth. But the moon
should have moved from near the earth's surface to its
present distance in several billion years less time than
the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the
earth and moon. Consequently, the earth-moon system must
be much younger than evolutionists assume.
a) Walter H. Munk and Gordon J. F. MacDonald, THE
ROTATION OF THE EARTH (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1975), p. 198.
79. If the moon were billions of years old, it should have
accumulated a thick layer of space dust. Before
instruments were placed on the moon, NASA and outside
scientists [a] were very concerned that our astronauts
would sink into a sea of dust--possibly a mile in
thickness. This did not happen. There is very little space
dust on the moon. In fact, after examining the rocks and
dust brought back from the moon, it was learned that only
about 1/60th of the one or two inch surface layer
originated from outer space [b,c]. Recent measurements [d]
of the influx rate also do not support the thin layer of
meteoritic dust on the moon, even if this rate were no
higher in the past. Of course the rate of dust
accumulation on the moon should have been much greater in
the past. Conclusion: the moon is probably quite young.
a) Before instruments were sent to the moon, Isaac Asimov
made some interesting (but false) predictions. After
estimating the great depths of dust that should be on
the moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by
stating: ''I get a picture, therefore, of the first
spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing
purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first . . and
sinking majestically out of sight.'' [Isaac Asimov,
''14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,'' SCIENCE DIGEST,
January 1959, p. 36.]
b) Herbert A. Zook, ''The State of Meteoritic Material on
the Moon,'' PROCEEDINGS OF THE LUNAR SCIENCE
CONFERENCE (6th), 1975, pp. 1653-1672.
c) Stuart Ross Taylor, LUNAR SCIENCE: A POST-APOLLO VIEW
(New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 92.
d) David W. Hughes, ''The Changing Micrometeoriod
Influx,'' NATURE, Vol. 251, 4 October 1974, pp. 379-
380. Taylor, pp. 84, 92. Computations based on the
data contained in the preceding two references support
a dust layer on the moon of at least 3.8 feet. If the
influx was greater than it is at present, as almost
all scientists believe, then the thickness of the dust
layer would be even greater.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
80. The moon has a magnetic field and is still warm [a], all
of which indicate that the moon is young.
a) Nicholas M. Short, PLANETARY GEOLOGY (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), pp. 175-184.
81. As short period comets pass the sun, a small fraction of
their mass vaporizes and forms a long tail. Nothing should
remain of these comets after about 1000 orbits. There are
no known sources for replenishing comets [a]. In fact,
gravitational perturbations by the larger planets tend to
expel comets from the solar system [a]. If comets came
into existence at the same time as the solar system, the
solar system must be less than 10,000 years old [b-e].
a) R. A. Lyttleton, ''The Non-existence of the Oort
Cometary Shell,'' ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE,
Vol.31, 1974, pp. 385-401.
b) Thomas D. Nicholson, ''Comets, Studied for Many Years,
Remain an Enigma to Scientists,'' NATURAL HISTORY,
March 1966, pp. 44-47.
c) Harold Armstrong, ''Comets and a Young Solar System,''
in SPEAK TO THE EARTH, edited by George F. Howe (New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1975), pp. 327-330.
d) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 58-59.
e) R. A. Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 110.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
82. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the
energy they receive from the sun [a-b]. Venus also
radiates too much energy [c]. Calculations show that it
is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear
fusion [d], radioactive decay, gravitational contraction,
or phase changes within those planets. The only other
conceivable explanation is that these planets have not
existed long enough to cool off [e,f].
a) H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie, Jr., ''The Internal
Powers and Effective Temperature of Jupiter and
Saturn,'' THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, Vol.157, July
1969, pp. L69-L72.
b) M. Mitchell Waldrop, ''The Puzzle That is Saturn,''
SCIENCE, 18September 1981, p. 1351.
c) ''The Mystery of Venus's Internal Heat,'' NEW
SCIENTIST, 13 November 1980, p. 437.
d) Andrew P. Ingersoll, ''Jupiter and Saturn,''
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, December 1981, p. 92.
e) Steidl, ''The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent
Evidence--Planets, Comets, and Asteroids,'' in DESIGN
AND ORIGINS IN ASTRONOMY, edited by George Mulfinger
(Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society, 1983),
pp. 87, 91, 100.
f) For an analysis of just how rapidly Jupiter would have
cooled to its present temperature if it had been an
unreasonably hot 20,000 degrees Kelvin when it formed,
see Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, ''Thermal
Histories of Jupiter Models,'' ICARUS, Vol. 12, 1970,
pp. 317-330.
83. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum
cleaner that sweeps up about 100,000 tons of
micrometeroids per day. If the solar system were older
than 10,000 years, no micrometeroids should remain near
the center of the solar system since there is no
significant source of replenishment. A large disk-shaped
cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion:
the solar system is less than 10,000 years old [a,b].
a) Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 60-61.
b) Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Duursma, THE AGE OF
THE SOLAR SYSTEM: A STUDY OF THE POYNTING-ROBERTSTON
EFFECT AND EXTINCTION OF INTERPLANETARY DUST (El
Cajon, CA: ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, 1978).
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
84. The sun's radiation applies an outward force on very small
particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than 100,000th
of a centimeter in diameter should have been ''blown out''
of the solar system if the solar system were billions of
years old. These particles are still orbiting the sun [a].
Conclusion: the solar system is young.
a) Stuart Ross Taylor, LUNAR SCIENCE: A POST-APOLLO VIEW
(New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.
85. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the
Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory
have made DIRECT visual measurements that indicate that
the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about .1%
each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid
shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400
years [a]. Several INDIRECT techniques also confirm this
gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse
rates are only about 1/7th as much [b,c]. Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun
existed a million years ago, it would have been so large
that it would have heated the earth so much that life
could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a
million years ago all the present forms of life were
essentially as they are now, having completed their
evolution that began a THOUSAND million years ago.
a) G.B. Lubkin, ''Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun
is Shrinking,'' PHYSICS TODAY, September 1979, pp.
17-19.
b) David W. Dunham ET. AL., ''Observations of a Probable
Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979,''
SCIENCE, Vol.210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245.
c) John Gribben and Omar Sattaur, ''The Schoolchildren's
Eclipse,'' SCIENCE 84, April 1984, pp. 51-56.
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR
SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY
INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR
ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.)
C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at
significantly different speeds frequently travel in
closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if
they had been traveling for billions of years because even
the slightest difference in their velocities would cause
their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar
observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar
combinations that apparently have vastly different
velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d].
a) Harold S. Slusher, AGE OF THE COSMOS, ICR Technical
Monograph No.9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation
Research), p. 16.
b) F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar, ''On the Nature of
Mass,'' NATURE, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41-44.
c) William Kaufmann III, ''The Most Feared Astronomer on
Earth,'' SCIENCE DIGEST, July 1981, p. 81.
d) Geoffrey Burbidge, ''Redshift Rift,'' SCIENCE 81,
December 1981, p. 18.
87. Galaxies are often found in tight clusters that contain
hundreds of galaxies. The apparent velocities of
individual galaxies within these clusters are so high in
comparison to the calculated mass of the entire cluster
that these clusters should be flying apart. But since the
galaxies within clusters are so close together, they could
not have been flying apart for very long. A 10-20 billion
year old universe is completely inconsistent with what we
see [a-d].
a) Gerardus D. Bouw, ''Galaxy Clusters and the Mass
Anomaly,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY,
September 1977, pp. 108-112.
b) Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE, pp. 179-
185.
c) Joseph Silk, THE BIG BANG (San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Co., 1980), pp. 188-191.
d) M. Mitchell Waldrop, ''The Large-Scale Structure of
the Universe,'' SCIENCE, 4 March 1983, p. 1050. All
dating techniques, to include the FEW that suggest an
old earth and an old universe, lean heavily on the
assumption that a process observed today has always
proceeded at a known rate. In many cases this
assumption may be grossly inaccurate. But in the case
of the many dating ''clocks'' that show a young earth,
a much better understanding usually exists for the
mechanism that drives the clock. Furthermore, the
extrapolation process is over a much shorter time and
is therefore more likely to be correct. For the
person who has always been told that the earth is
billions of years old, this contrary evidence is
understandably disturbing. But can you imagine how
disturbing this evidence is to the evolutionist?
TO BE CONTINUED
III. (Earth Sciences):
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED. (See 37-87.)
III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD.
A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY
EXISTS [a-g].
88. Ancient historians such as Josephus, the Jewish-Roman
historian, and Berosus of the Chaldeans mentioned in their
writings that the Ark existed. Marco Polo also stated
that the Ark was reported to be on a mountain in greater
Armenia.
89. In about 1856, a team of three skeptical British
scientists and two Armenian guides climbed to Ararat to
demonstrate that the Ark did not exist. The Ark was
supposedly found, but the British scientists threatened to
kill the guides if they reported it. Years later one of
the Armenians (then living in the United States) and one
of the scientists independently reported that they had
actually located the Ark.
90. Sir James Bryce, a noted British scholar and traveler of
the mid-nineteenth century, conducted extensive library
research concerning the Ark. He became convinced that the
Ark was preserved on Mount Ararat. Finally, in 1876, he
ascended to the summit of the mountain and found, at the
13,000 foot level (2,000 feet above the timber line), a
large piece of hand-tooled wood that he believed was from
the Ark.
91. In 1883, a series of newspaper articles reported that a
team of Turkish commissioners, while investigating
avalanche conditions on Mount Ararat, unexpectedly came
upon the Ark projecting out of the melting ice at the end
of an unusually warm summer. They claimed that they
entered and examined a portion of the Ark.
92. In the unusually warm summer of 1902, an Armenian boy,
Georgie Hagopian, and his uncle climbed to the Ark that
was reportedly sticking out of an ice pack. The boy
climbed over the Ark and was able to describe it in great
detail. In 1904 Hagopian visited the Ark for a second
time. Shortly before his death in 1972, a tape recording
was made of his detailed testimony. This recording has
undergone voice analyzer tests which indicate that his
account is quite credible [h].
93. A Russian pilot, flying over Ararat in World War I (1915),
thought he saw the Ark. The news of his discovery reached
the Czar, who dispatched a large expedition to the site.
The soldiers were able to locate and explore the boat, but
before they could report back to the capitol, the Russian
Revolution of 1917 had occurred. Their report disappeared,
and the soldiers were scattered. Some of them eventually
reached the United States. Various relatives and friends
have confirmed this story.
94. At about the time of the Russian sighting, five Turkish
soldiers, crossing Mount Ararat, claim to have encountered
the Ark; however, they did not report their story until 30
years later when they offered to guide an American
expedition to the site. The expedition did not
materialize, and their services were not sought until
after their deaths.
95. During World War II, a group of Russian flyers on at least
two occasions took aerial photographs that showed the Ark
protruding out of the ice. In Berlin after the war, these
photos were shown to an American doctor who subsequently
disclosed this story.
96. An oil geologist, George Greene, in 1953 took a number of
photographs of the Ark from a helicopter. After returning
to the United States, Greene showed his photographs to
many people but was unable to raise financial backing for
a ground-based expedition. Finally, he went to South
America where he was killed. Although the pictures have
not been located, over 30 people have given sworn written
testimony that they saw these photographs that clearly
showed the Ark protruding from the melting ice field at
the edge of a precipice. There are many other stories in
which people claim to have seen the Ark. Some are of
questionable validity, and others are inconsistent with
many of the known details. Only the most credible are
summarized above.
a) Violet M. Cummings, NOAH'S ARK: FACT OR FABLE? (San
Diego: Creation-Science Research Center, 1972).
b) Tim LaHaye and John D. Morris, THE ARK ON ARARAT (San
Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1976).
c) John Warwick Montgomery, THE QUEST FOR NOAH'S ARK
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, Inc.,
1972).
d) John D. Morris, ADVENTURE ON ARARAT (El Cajon, CA:
Institute for Creation Research, 1973).
e) Rene Noorbergen, THE ARK FILE (California: Pacific
Press Publishing, 1974).
f) Violet M. Cummings, HAS ANYBODY REALLY SEEN NOAH'S
ARK? (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1982).
g) Dave Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, Jr., IN SEARCH
OF NOAH'S ARK (Los Angeles: Sun Classic Books, 1976).
h) Rene Noorbergen, SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES
(Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1977), p.
74-92.
TO BE CONTINUED
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownrck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) (07/03/85)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See
1-36.)
II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE
WERE RECENTLY CREATED. (See 37-87.)
III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD.
A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY
EXISTS.
B. MANY OF THE EARTH'S PREVIOUSLY UNEXPLAINABLE FEATURES CAN BE
EXPLAINED ONLY BY THIS FLOOD.
The origin of each of the following features of the earth is a
subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each
typically involves numerous hypotheses and unexplainable
aspects. Yet all of these features can be viewed as direct
consequences of a singular and unrepeatable event--a
cataclysmic flood whose waters burst forth from worldwide,
subterranean, and interconnected chambers with an energy
release in excess of one trillion megatons of TNT. The cause
and effect sequence of the events involved phenomena that are
either well understood or are observable in modern times.
97. glaciers and the ice age
98. frozen mammoths
99. salt domes
100. continental drift
101. coal formations
102. mountains
103. overthrusts
104. extinction of the dinosaurs
105. ocean trenches
106. submarine canyons
107. mid-oceanic ridge
108. magnetic patterns of the ocean floor
109. strata
110. continental shelves and slopes
111. submarine volcanoes and guyots
112. metamorphic rock
(The details concerning 97-112 are the chapter titles of a
book that is in the process of being written. Unfortunately,
the length and specialized nature of each topic makes this
subject inappropriate for dialogue on net.origins. If anyone
on this net has both qualifications and interest in
critiquing, discussing, or learning about this new theory,
write W. T. Brown, 1319 Brush Hill Circle, Naperville, IL
60540. Be sure and state your specific interests, academic
qualifications, and field experience. -- W.T.B.)
C. THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD ARE
REALLY QUITE PLAUSIBLE IF EXAMINED CLOSELY.
113. Every major mountain range on the earth contains fossils
of sea life.
114. Practically every culture on earth has legends telling of
a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a
large boat [a].
a) Byron C. Nelson, THE DELUGE STORY IN STONE
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, Inc.,
1968), pp. 169-190.
115. The majority of the earth's mountains were formed after
most of the sediments were deposited. If these mountains
were again flattened out (while the ocean basins were
allowed to rise in compensation for this downward flow of
mass), the oceans would flood the entire earth. Therefore,
there is enough water on the earth to cover the smaller
mountains that existed prior to the flood.
116. Seeds can still germinate after soaking for a year in salt
water [a].
a) George F. Howe, ''Seed Germination, Sea Water, and
Plant Survival in the Great Flood,'' SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES IN SPECIAL CREATION (New Jersey: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 285-298.
Ron Kukuk
Walt Brownmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/05/85)
In article <387@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 62. Geological formations are almost always dated by their > fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of > extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the > assumed evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary > sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is > circular [a-e]. Furthermore, this procedure has produced > many contradictory results [f]. Here is another oft-repeated creationist fallacy, which has frequently been refuted in this group. Gould once wrote an excellent rebuttal, which I will rephase as best I remember. The first sentence above is correct. The GEOLOGICAL sequence was observed before evolution was proposed. Geologists observed that PHYSICAL sequences of the layers of rock corresponded from locality to locality. They were able to obtain coarse sequences with the types of stone (sandstone, shale, coal, etc.), but finer sequences with fossil organisms. This observation of a sequence was an example of induction, a standard tool of science. The assumption of gradualism allowed the next step, the proposal that the geological record was in a chronological order. (No mechanism for interpolating layers made sense at the time. Now, we know that there are a few geological anachronisms [which creationists love to cite], but they are easily explained as overthrusts [where crustal motion has slid one layer of rock on top of another.]) Only after the above two steps was it possible to observe and infer that groups of organisms arose at different times in the fossil record, and that there seemed to be an increase in complexity of organisms as the layers became more recent. Having established the ideas of geological sequence and evolutionary sequence, it is then reasonable to use both together to fine tune eachother. Creationists ignore the historical origins to make a claim of circularity. This is comparable to claiming that an arch was created, rather than built with a central support that was later removed. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/05/85)
In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > 70. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures > within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids > were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If > these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago, > leakage would have dropped the pressure to a level far > below what it is today [a]. > > a) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London: > Max Parrish, 1966), p. 341. High pressures are found in permeable rocks that are CAPPED BY IMPERMEABLE ROCKS. The pressure is due to the lower specific gravity of the oil and gas (compared to the water upon which it floats within the permeable rock.) An analogous situation would be a waterglass inverted into a pool of water, trapping air inside. If you put a tube down to the glass, and measured the pressure of air coming from the glass, it would be positive. > 71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are > entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of > sediment transport was even greater in the past as the > looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the > earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the > sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have > accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the > continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a]. > > a) Stuart E. Nevins, ''Evolution: The Ocean Says No!'' > SYMPOSIUM ON CREATION V (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), > pp. 77-83. This entirely overlooks the simple fact of recycling of sediments into rocks and back into sediments. Not to mention the fact that much of the ocean floors is considered to be very young (because of generation of new ocean floor and subduction of old.) > 72. The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level > them in much less than twenty-five million years [a,b]. > However, evolutionists believe that the fossils of land > animals and plants that are at high elevations have been > there for over 300 million years. > > a) Nevins, pp. 80-81. > b) George C. Kennedy, ''The Origin of Continents, > Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, 1959, pp. 491-504. This entirely overlooks the fact of orogeny. New mountains can be built faster than they erode: I think this has been measured in the Himalayas. Anyone know of a reference to the rate of building? > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > must be very much younger than a million years. Because you are ignorant, you are able to conclude that? Amazing. Know-nothingism at its finest. (***sarcasm***) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <385@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 57. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written > records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has > operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the > clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. > These assumptions are almost always unstated or > overlooked. Actually, this is false, you simply must look at papers written on this subject, not papers on other subjects! When you look at the clock at work do you question its accuracy? After all it is not *your* job to set the clock. Why should a paper on, for instance, a newly discoverd fossil be expected to discuss the assumptions and details of radiometric dating? All it need do is provide on or two references as a key to the relevant literature! > > 58. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating > techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been > essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also > been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This > bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even > though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. > Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence that suggests > that radioactive decay has not always been constant but > has varied by many orders of magnitude from that observed > today [a,b]. We don't know what causes radioactive decay!?!? Please! Talk to a quantum physicist sometime! What evidence do you see for variable rates of decay? I would like to see it, or at least some references to some articles in *refereed* journals, right now I do not believe it. > > a) Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New > Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction > and Coalification,'' SCIENCE, Vol.194, 15 October > 1976, pp. 315-317. This is not really germane, since it does not really question any of the basic assumptions of radiometric dating. All it does is propose a revision of the model of when Uraniium gets incorporated into coal during its formation. This *would* require a revision of certain age estimates, if it is validated by other researchers. > > 59. The public has been greatly misled concerning the > consistency, reliability, and trustworthiness of > radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, > the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium- > Lead method). Many of the published dates can be checked > by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that > sometimes lie above and below radiometrically dated rock. > In over 400 of these published checks (about half), the > radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic > age in error--indicating major errors in methodology. An > unanswered question is, ''How many other dating checks > were NOT PUBLISHED because they too were in error?'' [a,b] > Wow! Talk about geting things turned around backwards! The age estimates of fossils are for all intents and purposes *based* on radiometric dating! If the older age estimates disagree with new ones this is a reason to revise the estimates on the basis of the new data! Really! Many original fossil age estimates are only very indirectly based on radiometric dating via a chain of correlations. Such a method is intrinsically imprecise, so when radiometric data becomes available for a new set of formations, it is the fossil age estimates that are likely to be wrong. In fact all you are doing is comparing the accuracy of interpolation to the accuracy of direct measurement, with the expected results that one is less accurate than the other! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <386@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 60. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated > by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 > years old, is unable to extend this accuracy to date more > ancient organic remains. A few people have claimed that > ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to > be extended even further back in time, but these people > have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the > other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites > worldwide [a,b] indicate that the concentration of > radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some > time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, the > maximum possible radiocarbon age obtainable with the > standard techniques (approximately 50,000 years) could > easily correspond to a TRUE age of 5,000 years. > Big deal! Radiocarbon is simply not used for age estiamtes on the geological time scale! 50,000 years is simply *nothing* compared to geological time. In fact, this is not even sufficient to take one back out of the Holocene epoch. Remains that young are not even really considered fossils. > 61. Radiohalos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the > radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various > crystals, are strong evidence that the earth's crust was > never in a molten state. Based upon the specific patterns > seen in many of these rocks, it appears that these rocks > came into existence almost instantaneously--in other > words, CREATION! [a,b] > > a) Robert V. Gentry, '''Spectacle' Array of Po**210 Halo > Radiocentres In Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical > Enigma,'' NATURE, 13 December 1974, pp. 564-566. > b) Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos In Radiochronological > and Cosmological Perspective,'' SCIENCE, 5 April 1974, > Vol. 184, pp. 62-66. > I may have to read these articles! However, unless the rocks studied had an estimated near to the estimated age of the Earth the results have little to say about the origin of the Earth, only about the particular, younger, rocks in which the pattern is found. Also, these are relatively old articles, what has been done with these results since then? Are the interpretations proposed still accepted. or have alternative interpretations been proposed? This is where the slow and sure method of science is so important, wait until a result has been confirmed and reconfirmed before really accepting it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <387@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 62. Geological formations are almost always dated by their > fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of > extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the > assumed evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary > sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is > circular [a-e]. Furthermore, this procedure has produced > many contradictory results [f]. > This is *not* how it is really done, as has been pointed out several times already. The fossil content is used to *correlate* spatially seperated strata. This correlation is then combined with *observed* sequencing in the various regions and reference dates provided by radiometeric dating for certain local strata to provide an interpolated dating sequence for the whole geologic column. This method is *not* circular. Admittedly some individual workers lacking general training in geology and paleontology have not understood the situation and erroniously used circular reasoning, but this is *not* the accepted technique. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/08/85)
In article <405@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > 108. magnetic patterns of the ocean floor These magnetic patterns also link various pieces of the contenents seperated by oceans of water. This is proof of contenental drift and therefore dates the earth far in excess of the 6000 years many fundementalist Christians rigidly adhere to as the true age of the earth. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Money for you from the Buddah"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/08/85)
Does anyone not see the contradiction between #63 and #67 repeated here? In article <388@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > 63. Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so- > called ''geologic column.'' [a] In fact, on the > continents, over half of the ''geologic periods'' are > ususally missing, and 15-20% of the earth's land surface > has less than one-third of these periods appearing in the > ''correct'' order [b]. Even within the Grand Canyon, over > 200 million years of this imaginary column are missing. > Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and > rocks is fallacious. > > a) ''We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we > have anything like a complete succession for any part > of the stratigraphical column in any one place.'' > [Derek V. Ager, THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL > RECORD, 2nd edition (New York: John Wiley and Sons, > Inc., 1981), p. 32.] > b) John Woodmorappe, ''The Essential Nonexistence of the > Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A > Quantitative Assessment,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY > QUARTERLY, Vol.18, No.1, June 1981, pp. 46-71. > 67. Since there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's > sedimentary strata, the entire geologic record must have > been deposited rapidly. (An UNCONFORMITY is an erosional > surface between two adjacent rock formations representing > a time break of unknown duration.) CONFORMITIES imply a > continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can trace a > continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic > record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments > along that path must have been deposited continuously [a]. > > a) Henry M. Morris, KING OF CREATION (San Diego: Creation > Life Publishers, 1980), pp. 152-153. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/09/85)
> > 58. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating > > techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been > > essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also > > been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This > > bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even > > though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. > > Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence that suggests > > that radioactive decay has not always been constant but > > has varied by many orders of magnitude from that observed > > today [a,b]. This reminds me of the advice they are said to give to new lawyers: When the facts contradict you, argue the law. When the law contradicts you, argue the facts. And when both the facts and the law contradict you, argue as loudly as you can. The plain fact is that if beta-decay constants had varied even a small amount from the values we observe today, the consistencies we observe between one radiochronometer and another would not be possible. Even if we accepted for the sake of argument the hypothesis that radioactive decay rates have varied, the variation would have to take place at a very small rate for Carbon-14 dating to agree as well as it does with historically validated dates (of tree rings and Egyptian dynasties) over the past few thousand years. If you admit the possibility of the *same* variation affecting dating methods that are valid for longer periods of time (such as U-Pb dating), you still cannot avoid the conclusion that the Earth is still hundreds of millions of years old, if not older. In any case, what are we to think of people who claim to be putting forward a *scientific* case, yet when the scientific facts are plainly against them, argue that one should ignore them on the grounds that we have only been observing them for 70 years? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (07/10/85)
> 57. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written > records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has > operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the > clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. > These assumptions are almost always unstated or > overlooked. I think you'll find that most published radiometric datings discuss both the possible problems with initial conditions (e.g. crystallization period, possible capture of included Ar, etc. -- for K/Ar dating). > 58. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating > techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been > essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also > been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This > bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even > though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. > Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence that suggests > that radioactive decay has not always been constant but > has varied by many orders of magnitude from that observed > today [a,b]. Any serious evidence of the rate of change of nuclear reactions would likely revolutionize modern physics. In the case of K/Ar dating and C14 dating, it's only necessary to assume that the rate is constant over the time of interest. In any case, only an increase in the rate of decay by several orders of magnitude would provide evidence consistent with creationist views (a lower rate would imply longer, not shorter time spans). -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (07/10/85)
Using a slightly-higher figure (based upon sediment flux measurements in major river systems), we're looking at an average rate of erosion of around 6 cm of continental surface (at a density of 2.4 gm/cm^3) per 1,000 years. Deposited oceanic sediments being less dense (say .8 gm/cm^3, dried density) and factoring in the ratio of 3/7 continental surface area/ocean bottom area, this would produce roughly 6 cm of ocean-bottom sediment every 1,000 years. At this rate, the continents (which are, on the average, only 840 meters high) would be worn down in roughly 50 million years. These sorts of back-of-the-evelope calculations are interesting, but completely ignore several different major processes: volcano building (volcanic eruptions produce roughly the same order of magnitude of material as the erosion figures), folding & upthrusting, and isostatic adjustments. You just can't ignore these other processes. Nor, can you ignore the extensive variations in erosion (64% of Australia doesn't drain into the sea, while 10% of North America does); and that the major portion of the sedimentary debris ends up on the margins of the continents (only about 6% of the eroded sediment actually makes it to the deep ocean). Extensive evidence indicates that much of the continental material is quite old, while the current ocean bottom is relatively young (a few hundred million years). A puzzle that's been resolved by plate tectonic studies. > 71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are > entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of > sediment transport was even greater in the past as the > looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the > earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the > sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have > accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the > continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a]. > 72. The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level > them in much less than twenty-five million years [a,b]. > However, evolutionists believe that the fossils of land > animals and plants that are at high elevations have been > there for over 300 million years. > > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > must be very much younger than a million years. Reef-building coral incorporates uranium into their CaC02 extensively, providing a "sink" for uranium (and CA, Sr, Ba, Ra as well). Lead is virtually insoluble in the oceans, and thus they essentially contain none (it stays in particulate form). Elements with a +2 valence (notably Ni, Co, Cu) show up in relatively high concentrations in deep sea sediments, apparently precipitating out rather rapidly. Silicon is quite effectively used by a number of species of diatoms & radiolarians, and the settling of their skeletons is probably the major "sink" in the occeans (for at least some of the species, silicon seems to be bio-limiting: give them more silicon, and they'll glady use it, grow, prosper, and fairly quickly die and deposit it). -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/10/85)
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <403@iham1.UUCP>: > 86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at > significantly different speeds frequently travel in > closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if > they had been traveling for billions of years because even > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause > their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar > observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar > combinations that apparently have vastly different > velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d]. Cars travelling on interstates in the same direction at significantly different speeds tend to travel in closely-space clusters. This would not be the case if they had been travelling for hundreds of miles because even the slightest difference in their velocities would cause their dispersal after such great periods of time/distance. Obviously the cars have only been travelling a few minutes. Despite the sarcasm, the above statement is true: cars DO tend to travel in clusters. But nobody believes that the members of a cluster are the same across "vast periods of time". -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/10/85)
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <404@iham1.UUCP>: >III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. > > A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY > EXISTS [a-g]. > > 88...89...90...91...92...93...94...95...96. A lot of people said they saw a boat. Which is good solid archeological evidence that the entire earth was flooded. Which in turn is good solid scientific evidence that thousands of years before the earth was flooded, a divine power created life. Methinks our powers of reasoning are slipping a little here. -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 70. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures > within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids > were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If > these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago, > leakage would have dropped the pressure to a level far > below what it is today [a]. > What? Leakage? Where? Why? I see no reason why a geological formation in situ must necessarily leak contained fluids! Why don't you read the article on "fossil" natural reactors in Scientific American for a discussion of just how stable some formations can be! > > 71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are > entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of > sediment transport was even greater in the past as the > looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the > earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the > sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have > accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the > continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a]. > As has been pointed out, this ignores various forms of recycling, such as subduction and orogony. It is also an example of the extrapolation fallacy. The error is this, the further a trend is extrapolated beyond its basis in measurement, the less reliable it is. Thus current rates of sedimentation are a poor estimate of such rates more than a few thousand years ago. And the current rates may be either higher *or* lower than past rates. > > 72. The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level > them in much less than twenty-five million years [a,b]. > However, evolutionists believe that the fossils of land > animals and plants that are at high elevations have been > there for over 300 million years. > > > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > must be very much younger than a million years. > Recycling and invalid extrapolation again! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/11/85)
.................... > 64. Since 1908, human-like footprints have been found > alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of > the Paluxy riverbed in Texas [a-c]. A similar discovery > has occurred in the Republic of Turkmen in the Soviet > Union [d]. Recently, near the Paluxy River, television > cameras have recorded the discovery of what appears to be > new human, dinosaur, and saber-tooth tiger footprints, as > well as a human hand print. This was found underneath > slabs of UNDISTURBED limestone [e]. All of this indicates > that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time AND the same > place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became > extinct about 65 million years before man supposedly began > to evolve. Something is wrong. What's wrong is, that TRACKS hardly constitute convincing evidence. Where are the BONES and other more identifiable evidence? Tracks are dents in the ground. Dents can be caused by a myriad of possible events, and just go to show how WEAK this evidence actually is. > > c) Roland T. Bird, ''Thunder In His Footsteps,'' NATURAL > HISTORY, May 1939, pp. 254-261, 302. (R. T. Bird was > skeptical that the human-like prints were made by man. > He dismissed the possibility since ''no man had ever > existed in the Age of Reptiles.'' However, he > acknowledged talking with at least a dozen people who > had seen what they called ''man tracks.'') Other people have acknowledged talking with at least a dozen people who had seen what they called ''UFO's'', but that dosen't constitute evidence. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <397@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 74. Meteorites are falling at a fairly steady rate onto the > earth. If this rate of influx has not been constant, it > has probably been decreasing as this meteoritic material > is purged from our solar system. Experts have therefore > expressed surprise that meteorites are only found in > relatively young sediments very near the earth's surface > [a-d]. Even the meteoritic particles in ocean sediments > are also concentrated in the top most layers [e]. If > these sediments, which average about a mile in thickness > on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of > millions of years, as evolutionists believe, many > meteorites should be well below the earth's surface. > Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited > rapidly. Furthermore, since no meteorites are found > immediately above the basement rocks on which these > sediments rest, these basement rocks could not have been > exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of > time. > > > 75. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the > earth is such that after five billion years, the > equivalent of over 16 feet of this dust should have > accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there > should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of > the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land > or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be > young [a-c]. > Both of the above ignore various forms of recycling. Old meteorites would be eroded to produce undifferentiated sediment, and thus be unrecognizable, and much of this nickel-rich sediment would either get mixed in with other sediments, reducing the nickel concentration, or eventually be washed to the sea, where it would by finally subducted down into the mantle, beyond our ken.(certainly 16 ft of nickel dust mixed in with a mile of other sediment would be a very small proportion(aprox 1/30), exactly as observed!! - and this is based on YOUR figures above) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <398@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 76. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the > past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its > strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the > theoretical view that there is an electrical current > inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If > this view is correct, then just 25,000 years ago the > electrical current would have been so vast that the > earth's structure could not have survived the heat > produced. This implies that the earth could not be older > than 25,000 years [a]. > This is a hiddeous example of the extrapolation fallacy, the argument *assumes* that the currently observed rate of decay in the magnetic field is valid for the past. This is simply bogus. In fact there is excellent theoretical reason to believe that the current reduction in field strength is a *relatively* recent occurance. This is based on the phenonomen called geo-magnetic reversal, which is the periodic reversal in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field as recorded in undisturbed volcanic rocks on the ocean floor. Any model of this requires that the field pass through a net zero field on the way to reversal. Thus all the decay of field strength implies is that the Earth is currently heading towards a magnetic reversal! (That is unless it simply means that the field is intrinsically randomly variable!) > > 77. If the earth was initially molten, it would have cooled to > its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years. > This conclusion holds even after one makes liberal > assumptions on the amount of heat generated by radioactive > decay within the earth [a]. The known temperature pattern > inside the earth is only consistent with a young earth. > I am not sure exactly what the significance of this is supposed to be! Most models I am aware of have the Earth reaching essentially its present condition a *long* time ago, and remining in near equilibrium since then. Thus, I agree, it would have, and *did* cool to its present condition in far less than 4.6 billion years! Where is the problem! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <395@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 68. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, > from just the decay of uranium and thorium. Detailed > experimentation [a] has shown that there is no known means > by which large amounts of helium can escape from the > atmosphere, even when considering the low atomic weight of > helium. The atmosphere appears to be young [b]. This is not very clear, could you clarify it a bit? > > a) ''What Happened to the Earth's Helium?'' NEW > SCIENTIST, Vol.420, 3 December 1964, pp. 631-632. > b) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London: > Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14. Actually all these references say is that 20 years ago there was no known mechanism to reduce the Earth's Helium level. Try tracing more recent follow-ups to these articles(someone else has *already* mentioned Science Citation Index - a very useful tool for this sort of checking). I am fairly certain that this matter has recieved quite a bit of research in the last 20 years, and may well be essentially cleared up. > > 69. Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known > rates that increase with temperature. Since these crystals > are found at different depths in the earth, those at > greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. > Even if the earth's crust is just a fraction of the age > that is claimed by evolutionists, there should be a > measurable difference in the lead content of zircons in > the top 4000 meters. Actually, no measurable difference is > found [a,b]. Similar conclusions are reached from a study > of the helium contained in these same zircon crystals [c]. > In fact, these helium studies lead to a conclusion that > the earth's crust is only thousands of years old [d]. > Aren't Zircons found mainly in *volcanic* rocks? If so than there would be little correlation between depth and age, since volcanics are often *intrusive* into sedimentary rocks, forming more or less equal age columns. Would somebody with more knowledge in geology confirm(or deny) this? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <389@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 65. Many different people have found, at different times and > places, man-made artifacts encased in coal. Examples > include .... By evolutionary dating > techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of > years old; but man supposedly did not begin to evolve > until 2-4 million years ago. Again, something is wrong. > > a) Rene Noorbergen, SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES (New York: > The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1977), pp. 40-62. > b) Harry V. Wiant, Jr., ''A Curiosity From Coal,'' > CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.13, No.1, > June 1976, p. 74. > c) J. R. Jochmans, ''Strange Relics from the Depths of > the Earth,'' BIBLE-SCIENCE NEWSLETTER, January 1979, > p. 1. > d) Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., ''Human Footprints in Rocks,'' > CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, March 1971, pp. > 201-202. > e) Frederick G. Wright, ''The Idaho Find,'' AMERICAN > ANTIQUARIAN, Vol.II, 1889, pp. 379-381, as cited by > William R. Corliss in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF > PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook > Project, 1978), pp. 661-662. > f) Frank Calvert, ''On the Probable Existence of Man > During the Miocene Period,'' ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE > JOURNAL, Vol.3, 1873, as cited by William R. Corliss > in ANCIENT MAN, A HANDBOOK OF PUZZLING ARTIFACTS (Glen > Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1978), pp. > 661-662. Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none! (Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science book) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <391@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 66. In rock formations in Utah [a], Kentucky [b], Missouri > [c], and possibly Pennsylvania [d] human-like FOOTPRINTS > that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been > found and examined by different authorities. There > appears to be a drastic error in chronology. > Well, well, well, the Paluxy mush shows up at last! Every report I have heard from reputable scientists about these so-called finds is that they are *not* what Creationists claim them to be. > > 67. Since there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's > sedimentary strata, the entire geologic record must have > been deposited rapidly. (An UNCONFORMITY is an erosional > surface between two adjacent rock formations representing > a time break of unknown duration.) CONFORMITIES imply a > continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can trace a > continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic > record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments > along that path must have been deposited continuously [a]. > This sounds completely absurd to me! There are *numerous* unconformities, so that the geologic column can *nowhere* be traced in its entirety. To produce a world-wide unconformity, it would be necessary for *all* sedimentation to stop world-wide simultaneously! As long as *any* sedimentation is going on there will be at least a local conformity! This so-called continuous trace involves shifting depositional environments to maintain "continuity". Utterly bogus, and based on a total misunderstanding of what standard sedimentary theory would predict! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/11/85)
In article <388@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 63. Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so- > called ''geologic column.'' [a] In fact, on the > continents, over half of the ''geologic periods'' are > ususally missing, and 15-20% of the earth's land surface > has less than one-third of these periods appearing in the > ''correct'' order [b]. Even within the Grand Canyon, over > 200 million years of this imaginary column are missing. > Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and > rocks is fallacious. > Oh, great, in another section you clain that the absence of world-wide unconformities is argument agains uniformitarianism, now you are complaining about the *existance* of unconformities! You can't have it both ways, one or the other argument *must* be invalid. Please ask yourself how much of the Earth's surface is currently subject to sedimentation? Not a whole lot really! Like all those upland areas that are eroding instead of being added to! Of course there are going to be large segments missing locally, since the sediment must come from *somewhere*. Large, extensive uplands will be unrepresented for long periods, since they take so long to be eroded to the point of being low enough to retain sediment! I will not even grace #64 with a further response. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/12/85)
........... > A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY > EXISTS [a-g]. The existance of an ark is not in conflict with evolution. It is entirely possible that an ark may have existed. However it is interesting that these articles do not note certain facts about what is known about the existance of any such ark, such as: 1) all reasonable ark size estimates are MUCH too small to transport 2 ea. of all land animal species (to say nothing of freshwater animals and plants). 2) There exists no reasonable explanation as to how the animals once released from the ark may have migrated to their respective corners of the world. 3) Pre-evolutionary creationists realized the problems in 1 and 2 and postulated a variety of possible explanations, none which modern creationists appear remotely aware of. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/12/85)
............... > A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY > EXISTS. > > B. MANY OF THE EARTH'S PREVIOUSLY UNEXPLAINABLE FEATURES CAN BE > EXPLAINED ONLY BY THIS FLOOD. First of all, I doubt very much that these are particularly 'unexplainable', second, what about the 'unexplainable' features of such a flood 'explanation'? (see previous posting; animal migrations, ark too small, etc.) > The origin of each of the following features of the earth is a > subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each Controversy perhaps, but that usually means there are several potential 'explanations', not that it is unexplainable. > typically involves numerous hypotheses and unexplainable > aspects. Yet all of these features can be viewed as direct Most of which are less 'unexplainable' than the previously mentioned 'unexplainable aspects' of a Flood explanation. > 97. glaciers and the ice age > > 98. frozen mammoths > > 99. salt domes > > 100. continental drift > > 101. coal formations These are a little out of my area of expertise. How does the Flood explain these things? > 102. mountains This is very easily explained by 1) volcanic activity, 2) earthquake activity, etc. > 103. overthrusts This too, is explainable by the aforementioned activities. > 104. extinction of the dinosaurs This has been explained by evidence of comets 'sideswiping' the earth every 26 million years or so. > 105. ocean trenches > 106. submarine canyons > 107. mid-oceanic ridge Again, I believe these are explained by volcanic and earthquake activity, (plate tectonics (sp?)). > 108. magnetic patterns of the ocean floor > > 109. strata > > 110. continental shelves and slopes > > 111. submarine volcanoes and guyots > > 112. metamorphic rock > > (The details concerning 97-112 are the chapter titles of a > book that is in the process of being written. Unfortunately, > the length and specialized nature of each topic makes this > subject inappropriate for dialogue on net.origins. If anyone I see no particular reason to think that a worldwide flood (define that by the way, what exactly does 'worldwide' mean, did it cover ALL the land masses ?) > C. THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD ARE > REALLY QUITE PLAUSIBLE IF EXAMINED CLOSELY. I doubt that. > 113. Every major mountain range on the earth contains fossils > of sea life. But you don't need a worldwide flood to provide a plausible explanation. > 114. Practically every culture on earth has legends telling of > a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a > large boat [a]. So? Maybe there WAS some kind of major flood, I just question whether or not it COMPLETELY covered all the land masses, and required Noah to save all the land animals. And, EVEN IF IT DID, that dosen't mean that the animals weren't evolving both before and after the flood occured. Actually, that would be a good way out of the problems of 1) ark size, and 2) animal migration, if the animals have gone through considerable evolution since then. > 115. The majority of the earth's mountains were formed after > most of the sediments were deposited. If these mountains > were again flattened out (while the ocean basins were > allowed to rise in compensation for this downward flow of > mass), the oceans would flood the entire earth. Therefore, > there is enough water on the earth to cover the smaller > mountains that existed prior to the flood. So, Gawd decided to flatten out the mountains so he wouldn't have to create excess water that he would later have to un-create? Sounds real plausible to me. > 116. Seeds can still germinate after soaking for a year in salt > water [a]. That's it? That's you're explanation of how plants survived through the flood? What did the herbivores eat while waiting for these seeds to grow? What did the carnivores eat while waiting for the population to grow? Plausible to the point of caricature. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/12/85)
................. >Does anyone not see the contradiction between #63 and #67 repeated here? > >In article <388@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: >> 63. Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so- >> called ''geologic column.'' [a] In fact, on the > >> 67. Since there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's >> sedimentary strata, the entire geologic record must have > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Obviously they're so confused among themselves that we can now state that Creationists disagree about the state of the ''geologic column'', and cite this as a reference. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <402@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 83. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum > cleaner that sweeps up about 100,000 tons of > micrometeroids per day. If the solar system were older > than 10,000 years, no micrometeroids should remain near > the center of the solar system since there is no > significant source of replenishment. A large disk-shaped > cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: > the solar system is less than 10,000 years old [a,b]. > > > 84. The sun's radiation applies an outward force on very small > particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than 100,000th > of a centimeter in diameter should have been ''blown out'' > of the solar system if the solar system were billions of > years old. These particles are still orbiting the sun [a]. > Conclusion: the solar system is young. > Well, another contradiction! In fact it is even worse! These two facts would seem to explain each other! It looks like these two opposing forces might just cancel each other. > > 85. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the > Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory > have made DIRECT visual measurements that indicate that > the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about .1% > each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, > records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid > shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 > years [a]. Several INDIRECT techniques also confirm this > gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse > rates are only about 1/7th as much [b,c]. Using the most > conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun > existed a million years ago, it would have been so large > that it would have heated the earth so much that life > could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a > million years ago all the present forms of life were > essentially as they are now, having completed their > evolution that began a THOUSAND million years ago. > > a) G.B. Lubkin, ''Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun > is Shrinking,'' PHYSICS TODAY, September 1979, pp. > 17-19. > b) David W. Dunham ET. AL., ''Observations of a Probable > Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979,'' > SCIENCE, Vol.210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245. Hmm! Can't seem to escape the extrapolation fallacy now can we. Just because the Sun has been shrinking for a paltry 400 yrs is no reason to assume an unchanged rate in the past. In fact the inaccuracy of measurements prior to the last few decades makes high precision and accuracy in these rate estimates impossible. All we know is that the Sun *appears* to have been shrinking at *aproximately* the rate indicated. So many stars are pulsating variables that a cyclic pattern for the Sun is hardly extraordinary. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <403@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at > significantly different speeds frequently travel in > closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if > they had been traveling for billions of years because even > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause > their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar > observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar > combinations that apparently have vastly different > velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d]. > Such incredible misconceptions about astronomy! There are essentially three kinds of star clusters, galactic clusters, globular clusters, and galaxies. Galactic clusters are loose aggregates made up of hot, *young* stars, and are *clearly* new formations due to clustered star formation in dense gas clouds. Thus the above statement is *correct* about such clusters, and no-one I have ever heard disagrees, but since these clusters are only a few million yrs old there is no conflict with standard cosmogony. The other two types of clusters are *gravitationally* bound, that is they are composed of stars mutually orbiting one another. Certainly they may show variations in instantaneous velocity, which if extrapolated linearly would predict dissolution of the cluster, *but* gravity enters the picture and changes the stars' velocities over time. > > 87. Galaxies are often found in tight clusters that contain > hundreds of galaxies. The apparent velocities of > individual galaxies within these clusters are so high in > comparison to the calculated mass of the entire cluster > that these clusters should be flying apart. But since the > galaxies within clusters are so close together, they could > not have been flying apart for very long. A 10-20 billion > year old universe is completely inconsistent with what we > see [a-d]. > This is slightly inaccurate, the velocities are inconsistant with the *observable* mass of the clusters. Considering that we can only see matter that is radiating this leaves a wide scope for enough dark, unradiating matter to correct the "problem". Admittedly this is probably one of the least well understood areas mentioned in these pamphlets, *but* one minor inconsistancy is hardly sufficient to throw out almost all of modern science in favor of a supernaturalistic "explanation". You must also provide evidence that *no* dark matter of sufficient mass exists before this can be made into a really telling point. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <404@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. > > A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY > EXISTS [a-g]. > > 88. Ancient historians such as Josephus, the Jewish-Roman > historian, and Berosus of the Chaldeans mentioned in their > writings that the Ark existed. Marco Polo also stated > that the Ark was reported to be on a mountain in greater > Armenia. > > 89. In about 1856, a team of three skeptical British > scientists and two Armenian guides climbed to Ararat to > demonstrate that the Ark did not exist. The Ark was > supposedly found, but the British scientists threatened to > kill the guides if they reported it. > > 90. Sir James Bryce, a noted British scholar and traveler of > the mid-nineteenth century, conducted extensive library > research concerning the Ark. He became convinced that the > Ark was preserved on Mount Ararat. > > 91. In 1883, a series of newspaper articles reported that a > team of Turkish commissioners, while investigating > avalanche conditions on Mount Ararat, unexpectedly came > upon the Ark projecting out of the melting ice at the end > of an unusually warm summer. They claimed that they > entered and examined a portion of the Ark. > > 92. In the unusually warm summer of 1902, an Armenian boy, > Georgie Hagopian, and his uncle climbed to the Ark that > was reportedly sticking out of an ice pack. The boy > climbed over the Ark and was able to describe it in great > detail. In 1904 Hagopian visited the Ark for a second > time. > > 93. A Russian pilot, flying over Ararat in World War I (1915), > thought he saw the Ark. > > 94. At about the time of the Russian sighting, five Turkish > soldiers, crossing Mount Ararat, claim to have encountered > the Ark; however, they did not report their story until 30 > years later when they offered to guide an American > expedition to the site. > > 95. During World War II, a group of Russian flyers on at least > two occasions took aerial photographs that showed the Ark > protruding out of the ice. > > 96. An oil geologist, George Greene, in 1953 took a number of > photographs of the Ark from a helicopter. > An interesting collection of anecdotal and circumstantial "evidence" of no scientific value whatever! Really such partisan authors as Josephus!(A Jew no less). But as a matter of fact many ancient historians were veru uncritical of thier sources and generally included myths and unsubstantiated tales as "facts". Then of course there are these people who saw the Ark and waited 30 yeaers to tell someone, and when they did it was for financial gain(being hired as guides by a gullible foreigner)!! I have seen some of these photos, they are about as clear and unambiguous as the photos of pyramids on Mars! Really, none of these accounts is of any value, none would even be acceptible in a court of law, let alone a serious historical textbook! What with "lost reports" and distant rumours I see no reason to take any of this seriously. Especially in the light of recent expeditions and analyses which have consistantly failed to find the Ark, and which have shown that the "piece of wood from the Ark" is in fact no such thing! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <405@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. > > > B. MANY OF THE EARTH'S PREVIOUSLY UNEXPLAINABLE FEATURES CAN BE > EXPLAINED ONLY BY THIS FLOOD. > > The origin of each of the following features of the earth is a > subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each > typically involves numerous hypotheses and unexplainable > aspects. Yet all of these features can be viewed as direct > consequences of a singular and unrepeatable event--a > cataclysmic flood whose waters burst forth from worldwide, > subterranean, and interconnected chambers with an energy > release in excess of one trillion megatons of TNT. The cause > and effect sequence of the events involved phenomena that are > either well understood or are observable in modern times. > > 97. glaciers and the ice age > 98. frozen mammoths > 99. salt domes > 100. continental drift > 101. coal formations > 102. mountains > 103. overthrusts > 104. extinction of the dinosaurs > 105. ocean trenches > 106. submarine canyons > 107. mid-oceanic ridge > 108. magnetic patterns of the ocean floor > 109. strata > 110. continental shelves and slopes > 111. submarine volcanoes and guyots > 112. metamorphic rock > Very interesting, and totally false! There are *no* known mechanisms by which a flood could cause all these phenonoma. At least not without rewriting physics. The physics of flooding is *well* understood on the basis of studies of recent floods. The sedimentology of floods is very distinctive and easily recognized in rocks, and is very different from the sedimentology found in most sedimentary strata! I can not see a flood of any sort embedding alternating magnetic domains in strips along the ocean floor in *volcanic* rocks! And so on for most of the above points. A flood *could* have caused extinctions, but then you must assume that *some* animals didn't make it to the Ark, a clear contradiction to the "accepted" acount. > > 113. Every major mountain range on the earth contains fossils > of sea life. Ditto, this is also not explainable by a flood. > > 114. Practically every culture on earth has legends telling of > a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a > large boat [a]. > So what! Simialar cultures in similar circumstances are likely to generate similar myths! Or do you want to argue that the similarity of pantheons from various cultures is reason to believe in many gods? These pantheons are often more similar to noe another than the flood myths!(I have read a North American Indian flood myth - totally different than the Biblical myth except in the general plot as outlined above) > > 115. The majority of the earth's mountains were formed after > most of the sediments were deposited. If these mountains > were again flattened out (while the ocean basins were > allowed to rise in compensation for this downward flow of > mass), the oceans would flood the entire earth. Therefore, > there is enough water on the earth to cover the smaller > mountains that existed prior to the flood. > This is not evidence, merely a contrivance to make the creation at least appear consistant. I.E it is an *assumption*. > 116. Seeds can still germinate after soaking for a year in salt > water [a]. > *Some* seeds can so germinate, but by no means *all*. Germination factors vary considerably from species to species. In fact some seeds will not germinate after a year at all. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/12/85)
> > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > > must be very much younger than a million years. > And the "age" that one calculates by this method using aluminum is 100 years. Proof that the oceans are only 100 years old! What nonsense! -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <400@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 81. As short period comets pass the sun, a small fraction of > their mass vaporizes and forms a long tail. Nothing should > remain of these comets after about 1000 orbits. There are > no known sources for replenishing comets [a]. In fact, > gravitational perturbations by the larger planets tend to > expel comets from the solar system [a]. If comets came > into existence at the same time as the solar system, the > solar system must be less than 10,000 years old [b-e]. > > a) R. A. Lyttleton, ''The Non-existence of the Oort > Cometary Shell,'' ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE, > Vol.31, 1974, pp. 385-401. A classic of out of context quoting! The paper above is probably the one proposing an alternative mechanism for the origin of comets yet it is claimed "There are no known sources..."! In fact not all astronomers accept Dr Lyttleton's refutation and still hold to the Oort cloud concept. However Dr Lyttleton's main point(if this is indeed the paper I am thinking about) is that the comets did *not* come into existance at the same time as the rest of the Solar System, thus the short lifetime of comets is *not* evidence for a young Solar System, only evidence for young comets! By the way Dr. Lyttleton's figure is 10 Million years not 10,000 years! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/12/85)
In article <401@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 82. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the > energy they receive from the sun [a-b]. Venus also > radiates too much energy [c]. Calculations show that it > is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear > fusion [d], radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, > or phase changes within those planets. The only other > conceivable explanation is that these planets have not > existed long enough to cool off [e,f]. > I discussed this with an astronomer friend of mine last night. His comments amounted to saying that this is based on a very naive model of planetary cooling, and that models exist which in fact are consistant with the observed temperatures! Since there is such a model, the cited temperatures are *not* evidence of young age. Thus indeed they have not existed long enough to cool off, but they would take much longer than the postulated age of the Solar System to do so. In addition Jupiter and Saturn are still undergoing a small amount of gravitational contraction. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/13/85)
> From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <403@iham1.UUCP>: > > 86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at > > significantly different speeds frequently travel in > > closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if > > they had been traveling for billions of years because even > > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause > > their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar > > observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar > > combinations that apparently have vastly different > > velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d]. > > Cars travelling on interstates in the same direction at significantly > different speeds tend to travel in closely-space clusters. This would not > be the case if they had been travelling for hundreds of miles because even > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause their dispersal > after such great periods of time/distance. Obviously the cars have only > been travelling a few minutes. > > Despite the sarcasm, the above statement is true: cars DO tend to travel > in clusters. But nobody believes that the members of a cluster are the same > across "vast periods of time". > Not true. The stars in both open clusters and globular clusters are known to be physically associated and in fact to have been born at the same place and time. The automobile analogy isn't true in this case. Which is not to say that Kukuk's argument has any validity. It doesn't. The mutual gravitational field of the stars in the cluster is quite sufficient to keep them together for extended periods of time. The stars in such a cluster have different velocities, but travel in orbits around the cluster center, just as planets have different velocities but travel around the center of the Solar System (the Sun). Also, many (open) clusters are quite young - only tens to hundreds of millions of years old. Globulars are very old - around ten billion years - but they have many more stars and the time it would take for them to dissolve is orders of magnitude larger than that. As for the apparently connected quasar-galaxy associations, it is clear that there is no physical association among the members of such groups. Stephan's Quintet, for example, has five apparent members, only four of which are physically associated. Arp has tried to find anomalous situations where galaxies with physical associations have greatly differing velocities; so far, he has been unsuccessful in persuading most astronomers that he has found such evidence. However, even if he were to succeed, it would not help the Creationist cause, because Arp's explanation (the one he is working towards) is that the quasar has been ejected rather recently from the center of the galaxy at high velocity. According to this hypothesis, this sort of thing goes on all the time, so the fact that we see such situations is by no means evidence that the universe is young. It is disingenuous for Creationists to claim otherwise. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/13/85)
> From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <403@iham1.UUCP>: > > 86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at > > significantly different speeds frequently travel in > > closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if > > they had been traveling for billions of years because even > > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause > > their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar > > observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar > > combinations that apparently have vastly different > > velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d]. > > Cars travelling on interstates in the same direction at significantly > different speeds tend to travel in closely-space clusters. This would not > be the case if they had been travelling for hundreds of miles because even > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause their dispersal > after such great periods of time/distance. Obviously the cars have only > been travelling a few minutes. > > --JB All we learn from history is that > we learn nothing from history. Here are the ages of some clusters in our galaxy: cluster age( 1,000,000 yrs) IC348 < 1 IC2994 1 NGC3572 1.3 M21 3 IC2395 4 M7 40 M23 160 NGC2300 1,200 NGC188 11,000 The point of all this is to emphasize that clusters do exist, and are not just random associations, although such associations do exist. Furthermore, Ron's assertion is falsified by the existence of the last two on the list. The quaser problem rests on subjective interpretation as to whether galaxies are indeed close together, and not just on the same line of sight. Because the claim flies in the face of experiment and consistent observations, the general consensus is that more evidence, that is not subjective, needs to be gathered to counter the evidence against the claim. Padraig Houlahan.
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/16/85)
>[Ron Kukuk and THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE] > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 60. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated > by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 > years old, is unable to extend this accuracy to date more > ancient organic remains. A few people have claimed that > ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to > be extended even further back in time, but these people > have not let outside scientists examine their data. This is a serious charge, and if true, is very disturbing. Can anyone offer substantiation? > On the > other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites > worldwide [a,b] indicate that the concentration of > radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some > time prior to 3,500 years ago. I seem to remember it as not all that rapid, but go on... > If this happened, the > maximum possible radiocarbon age obtainable with the > standard techniques (approximately 50,000 years) could > easily correspond to a TRUE age of 5,000 years. Wrong! If there used to be more C14 in the atmosphere than there is now, it would make radiocarbon dates come out too *young*, not too old. At least try to get the direction of the error right! > > a) Robert H. Brown, ''Can We Believe Radiocarbon > Dates?'', CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.12, > No.1, June 1975, pp. 66-68. > b) Robert H. Brown, ''Regression Analysis of C-14 Age > Profiles,'' Unpublished Manuscript, 28 July 1980. Is this the same Bob Brown that used to be on the net? The one who did the bogus analysis of the probability of abiogenesis, then, when its bogosity was pointed out, said essentially "Oh, I knew it was meaningless, but I thought I'd do it anyway." -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (07/17/85)
>In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: >> >> 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, >> lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering >> the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small >> quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There >> is no known means by which large amounts of these elements >> can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans >> must be very much younger than a million years. > >Because you are ignorant, you are able to conclude that? Amazing. >Know-nothingism at its finest. (***sarcasm***) Someone earlier said that their geologist friends could come up with several good explanations for this (I missed saving the post because I wasn't incensed enough to reply at that time.) But talk about assumptions of constant rates! I find constant radioactive decay rates much easier to swallow than constant rates of oceanic deposition OF ELEMENTS WHICH MAN FINDS USEFUL, MINES, AND DISCARDS IN MASSIVE QUANTITES! Not even a Creationist can claim that the rate of uncovering of these elements by nature (pre-industrialization) is the same or close to the rate at which we extract them from the earth. I've been tolerating Kukuk's postings because they generate a lot of interesting rebuttal and discussion, largely in areas I know a bit about but always enjoy hearing more. But when he posts an argument which is as obviously falacious as this one (even *I* can see it :-) ), I wonder if I should even bother with the replies. (I skip the original posts, since the duplication in rebuttals is virtually complete......) -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/17/85)
> > 60. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated > > by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 > > years old, is unable to extend this accuracy to date more > > ancient organic remains. A few people have claimed that > > ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to > > be extended even further back in time, but these people > > have not let outside scientists examine their data. > > This is a serious charge, and if true, is very disturbing. Can anyone > offer substantiation? The creationist are trying to confuse the issues. The half life of carbon 14 is few thousand years, therefore, it is not useful for dating objects on a prehistorical scale. Evolution time scales are order of magnitude larger. I don't see the point of bringing carbon dating into the discussion unless you are trying to confuse the uninformed. Returning to the point of the accuracy of the technique. The rate of decay of radioactive isotopes does not vary with time. The problem is the rate of formation of the isotope. Carbon 14 is formed constantly in the atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen (I think). We cannot assume that the bombarment has been constant throughout the ages. (Radioactive decay is an intrinsic property of a single atom, whereas cosmic rays intensity depends on a collection of many sources that could be changing with time.) -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (07/19/85)
.................... > 64. Since 1908, human-like footprints have been found > alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of > the Paluxy riverbed in Texas [a-c]. A similar discovery > has occurred in the Republic of Turkmen in the Soviet > Union [d]. Recently, near the Paluxy River, television > cameras have recorded the discovery of what appears to be > new human, dinosaur, and saber-tooth tiger footprints, as > well as a human hand print. This was found underneath > slabs of UNDISTURBED limestone [e]. All of this indicates > that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time AND the same > place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became > extinct about 65 million years before man supposedly began > to evolve. Something is wrong. Check out the latest (XV) issue of CREATION/EVOLUTION. It deals exclusively with the Paluxy River 'mantracks'. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. Seek simplicity and distrust it." --Whitehead Steve Tynor Georgia Instutute of Technology ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor -- Steve Tynor Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!tynor
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 70. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures > within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids > were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If > these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago, > leakage would have dropped the pressure to a level far > below what it is today [a]. > > a) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London: > Max Parrish, 1966), p. 341. > Or the fluids have been pressurized in the last 10,000 years. Remember, the Ice Age came to an end about that time; dramatic changes in elevation have occurred in areas overlaid by glaciers. (Yes, this has been measured --- it's not a supposition.) > 71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are > entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of > sediment transport was even greater in the past as the > looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the > earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the > sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have > accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the > continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a]. > > a) Stuart E. Nevins, ''Evolution: The Ocean Says No!'' > SYMPOSIUM ON CREATION V (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), > pp. 77-83. > A whole stack of false assumptions here. 1. Top soil is continuously being created. (Observed fact --- not supposition.) 2. "...erosion reduced the earth's relief." Mountain building is believed to be a recurring process, which would increase relief in places, and reduce it in others. 3. Thirty million years is enough time, easily, to turn sediment into rock. Also, sea-floor spreading and consequent subduction at plate edges is believed to recycle sediments, rock, and anything else stupid enough to lie still on the ocean floor. 4. Human activity has had a real effect on erosion rates. San Francisco Bay, for example, has significantly different outlines than it did in 1850 because of hydraulic gold mining on the American River. Many of the coastlines of the Mediterranean have been altered because of increases in erosion caused by farming, and hydraulic gold mining by the Romans. > 72. The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level > them in much less than twenty-five million years [a,b]. > However, evolutionists believe that the fossils of land > animals and plants that are at high elevations have been > there for over 300 million years. > > a) Nevins, pp. 80-81. > b) George C. Kennedy, ''The Origin of Continents, > Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,'' AMERICAN > SCIENTIST, 1959, pp. 491-504. > See my comments above about mountain building. > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > must be very much younger than a million years. > > TO BE CONTINUED > > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown Evidence? Remember, the solubility of most compounds depends on temperature and the presence of other dissolved compounds. Sea water is a distinctly difference environment from an ocean. (Also, some elements are concentrated in marine life --- mercury in tuna is a good example. Mercury in tuna can either end up on the bottom of the ocean in ooze, or in the stomachs of humans.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 74. Meteorites are falling at a fairly steady rate onto the > earth. If this rate of influx has not been constant, it > has probably been decreasing as this meteoritic material > is purged from our solar system. Experts have therefore > expressed surprise that meteorites are only found in > relatively young sediments very near the earth's surface > [a-d]. Even the meteoritic particles in ocean sediments > are also concentrated in the top most layers [e]. If > these sediments, which average about a mile in thickness > on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of > millions of years, as evolutionists believe, many > meteorites should be well below the earth's surface. > Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited > rapidly. Furthermore, since no meteorites are found > immediately above the basement rocks on which these > sediments rest, these basement rocks could not have been > exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of > time. > Nickel-iron meteorites rust. Once rusted, you would have a hard time distinguishing nickel oxide and iron oxide from Earth-originated nickel and iron oxide. (I don't believe there's even an isotopic difference.) Stony and carbonaceous meteorites are not dramatically different from a lot of other rocks. Put a mile of rock on top of a stony meteorite for 10 million years, and I doubt you would have anything distinguishable. > a) Fritz Heide, METEORITES (Chicago: University of > Chicago, 1964), p. 119. > b) Peter A. Steveson, ''Meteoritic Evidence for a Young > Earth,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.12, > June 1975, pp. 23-25. > c) ''Neither tektites nor meteorites have been found in > any of the ancient geologic formations [Mesozoic, > Paleozoic, or Proterozoic].'' [Ralph Stair, ''Tektites > and the Lost Planet,'' THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY, July > 1956, p. 11.] Tektites are not purported to be terribly ancient. > d) ''No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic > column.'' [W. H. Twenhofel, PRINCIPLES OF > SEDIMENTATION, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, > 1950), p. 144] > e) Hans Pettersson, ''Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic > Dust,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Vol.202, February 1960, > pp. 123-129. > > 75. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the > earth is such that after five billion years, the > equivalent of over 16 feet of this dust should have > accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there > should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of > the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land > or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be > young [a-c]. > Cuba, and eastern Canada are all places where disproportionate quantities of nickel appear in the crust, although with significantly different sources. Nickel isn't all that rare in the Earth's crust. > a) Henry M. Morris, editor, SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM (San > Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153. > b) Steveson, pp. 23-25. > c) Pettersson, p. 132. > > TO BE CONTINUED > > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 76. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the > past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its > strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the > theoretical view that there is an electrical current > inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If > this view is correct, then just 25,000 years ago the > electrical current would have been so vast that the > earth's structure could not have survived the heat > produced. This implies that the earth could not be older > than 25,000 years [a]. > > a) Thomas G. Barnes, ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH'S > MAGNETIC FIELD, 2nd edition (El Cajon, CA: Institute > for Creation Research, 1983). > Magnetic field reversal is no longer considered a particularly bizarre concept. We may well be headed towards such a reversal. Your assertions about electrical current are questionable to me, but then again, I may not know enough about electromagnetism. > 77. If the earth was initially molten, it would have cooled to > its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years. > This conclusion holds even after one makes liberal > assumptions on the amount of heat generated by radioactive > decay within the earth [a]. The known temperature pattern > inside the earth is only consistent with a young earth. > > a) Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, THE AGE OF > THE EARTH: A STUDY OF THE COOLING OF THE EARTH UNDER > THE INFLUENCE OF RADIOACTIVE HEAT SOURCES, ICR > Monograph No.7 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation > Research, 1978). > > TO BE CONTINUED > Care to quote from a more persuasive source? > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. Evolution requires an old earth and an old > solar system. Without billions of years, virtually all > informed evolutionists will admit that their theory is dead. > But by hiding the ''origins question'' behind the veil of vast > periods of time, the unsolvable problems of evolution become > difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our > media and textbooks have implied for over a century that this > almost unimaginable age is correct, but practically never do > they examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of > contrary evidence. Therefore, most people instinctively > believe that things are old, and it is disturbing (at least > initially) to hear evidence that our origins are relatively > recent. Actually most dating techniques indicate that the > earth and solar system are young--possibly less than 10,000 > years old. Listed below are just a few of these evidences. > > 68. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, > from just the decay of uranium and thorium. Detailed > experimentation [a] has shown that there is no known means > by which large amounts of helium can escape from the > atmosphere, even when considering the low atomic weight of > helium. The atmosphere appears to be young [b]. > > a) ''What Happened to the Earth's Helium?'' NEW > SCIENTIST, Vol.420, 3 December 1964, pp. 631-632. > b) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London: > Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14. > Root mean square law would explain the complete loss of all the Earth's helium in a period measured in the low millions of years. Helium's presence in the Earth's atmosphere is the result of continuous addition of helium both from crustal radioactive element decay, and also the escape of helium from deep rocks. (For example, helium is frequently associated with natural gas. That's how the first discovery on Earth of helium came about.) > 69. Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known > rates that increase with temperature. Since these crystals > are found at different depths in the earth, those at > greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. > Even if the earth's crust is just a fraction of the age > that is claimed by evolutionists, there should be a > measurable difference in the lead content of zircons in > the top 4000 meters. Actually, no measurable difference is > found [a,b]. Similar conclusions are reached from a study > of the helium contained in these same zircon crystals [c]. > In fact, these helium studies lead to a conclusion that > the earth's crust is only thousands of years old [d]. > > a) Robert V. Gentry, Thomas J. Sworski, Henry S. McKown, > David H. Smith, R.E. Eby, and W.H. Christie, > ''Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications > for Nuclear Waste Containment,'' SCIENCE, 16 April > 1982, pp. 296-298. > b) Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,'' PHYSICS TODAY, October > 1982, pp. 13-14. > c) Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,'' PHYSICS TODAY, April > 1983, p. 13. > d) Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February > 1984. > > TO BE CONTINUED > > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 84. The sun's radiation applies an outward force on very small > particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than 100,000th > of a centimeter in diameter should have been ''blown out'' > of the solar system if the solar system were billions of > years old. These particles are still orbiting the sun [a]. > Conclusion: the solar system is young. > > a) Stuart Ross Taylor, LUNAR SCIENCE: A POST-APOLLO VIEW > (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90. > You assume that there is no new source of small particles. Comet tails, for one, are a plausible source. > 85. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the > Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory > have made DIRECT visual measurements that indicate that > the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about .1% > each century or about five feet per hour! Furthermore, > records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid > shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 > years [a]. Several INDIRECT techniques also confirm this > gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse > rates are only about 1/7th as much [b,c]. Using the most > conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun > existed a million years ago, it would have been so large > that it would have heated the earth so much that life > could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a > million years ago all the present forms of life were > essentially as they are now, having completed their > evolution that began a THOUSAND million years ago. > > a) G.B. Lubkin, ''Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun > is Shrinking,'' PHYSICS TODAY, September 1979, pp. > 17-19. > b) David W. Dunham ET. AL., ''Observations of a Probable > Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979,'' > SCIENCE, Vol.210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245. > c) John Gribben and Omar Sattaur, ''The Schoolchildren's > Eclipse,'' SCIENCE 84, April 1984, pp. 51-56. > > TO BE CONTINUED > You are assuming that the shrinkage rate is constant (gee, and I thought creationists didn't believe in uniformitarianism!). Analysis of what appears to be the results of solar flares on the surface of the Moon suggest considerable variability in the Sun's output. A reduction in solar energy output would cause a reduction in diameter (less light and radiation pressure exerted on the photosphere); an increase in solar energy output would cause an increase in diameter. The changes in climate which have been observed just in the last 600 years suggest the Sun's output is subject to frequent change. > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > A. NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR > SYSTEM AND UNIVERSE ARE UNSCIENTIFIC AND HOPELESSLY > INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.) > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. (See 57-67.) > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 86. Stars that are moving in the same direction at > significantly different speeds frequently travel in > closely-spaced clusters [a]. This would not be the case if > they had been traveling for billions of years because even > the slightest difference in their velocities would cause > their dispersal after such great periods of time. Similar > observations have been made of galaxy and of galaxy-quasar > combinations that apparently have vastly different > velocities but which appear to be connected [b-d]. > > a) Harold S. Slusher, AGE OF THE COSMOS, ICR Technical > Monograph No.9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation > Research), p. 16. > b) F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar, ''On the Nature of > Mass,'' NATURE, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41-44. > c) William Kaufmann III, ''The Most Feared Astronomer on > Earth,'' SCIENCE DIGEST, July 1981, p. 81. > d) Geoffrey Burbidge, ''Redshift Rift,'' SCIENCE 81, > December 1981, p. 18. > By the time we see the light of distant stars, the stars themselves have moved to some other location. Quasars, especially, are so many billions of light years away that it is a certainty that the quasars themselves are somewhere much different now. They may even have ceased to emit light. > 87. Galaxies are often found in tight clusters that contain > hundreds of galaxies. The apparent velocities of > individual galaxies within these clusters are so high in > comparison to the calculated mass of the entire cluster > that these clusters should be flying apart. But since the > galaxies within clusters are so close together, they could > not have been flying apart for very long. A 10-20 billion > year old universe is completely inconsistent with what we > see [a-d]. > Again, we are seeing something that happened a long time ago, and these clusters may have existed only for a short time. Their association may be only temporary. > a) Gerardus D. Bouw, ''Galaxy Clusters and the Mass > Anomaly,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, > September 1977, pp. 108-112. > b) Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS, AND THE BIBLE, pp. 179- > 185. > c) Joseph Silk, THE BIG BANG (San Francisco: W. H. > Freeman and Co., 1980), pp. 188-191. > d) M. Mitchell Waldrop, ''The Large-Scale Structure of > the Universe,'' SCIENCE, 4 March 1983, p. 1050. All > dating techniques, to include the FEW that suggest an > old earth and an old universe, lean heavily on the > assumption that a process observed today has always > proceeded at a known rate. In many cases this > assumption may be grossly inaccurate. But in the case > of the many dating ''clocks'' that show a young earth, > a much better understanding usually exists for the > mechanism that drives the clock. Furthermore, the > extrapolation process is over a much shorter time and > is therefore more likely to be correct. For the > person who has always been told that the earth is > billions of years old, this contrary evidence is > understandably disturbing. But can you imagine how > disturbing this evidence is to the evolutionist? > > TO BE CONTINUED > > > III. (Earth Sciences): > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/20/85)
> > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. (See > 1-36.) > > II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. (See 37-87.) > > III. (Earth Sciences): THE EARTH HAS EXPERIENCED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. > > A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY > EXISTS [a-g]. > > 88. Ancient historians such as Josephus, the Jewish-Roman > historian, and Berosus of the Chaldeans mentioned in their > writings that the Ark existed. Marco Polo also stated > that the Ark was reported to be on a mountain in greater > Armenia. > > 89. In about 1856, a team of three skeptical British > scientists and two Armenian guides climbed to Ararat to > demonstrate that the Ark did not exist. The Ark was > supposedly found, but the British scientists threatened to > kill the guides if they reported it. Years later one of > the Armenians (then living in the United States) and one > of the scientists independently reported that they had > actually located the Ark. > > 90. Sir James Bryce, a noted British scholar and traveler of > the mid-nineteenth century, conducted extensive library > research concerning the Ark. He became convinced that the > Ark was preserved on Mount Ararat. Finally, in 1876, he > ascended to the summit of the mountain and found, at the > 13,000 foot level (2,000 feet above the timber line), a > large piece of hand-tooled wood that he believed was from > the Ark. > > 91. In 1883, a series of newspaper articles reported that a > team of Turkish commissioners, while investigating > avalanche conditions on Mount Ararat, unexpectedly came > upon the Ark projecting out of the melting ice at the end > of an unusually warm summer. They claimed that they > entered and examined a portion of the Ark. > > 92. In the unusually warm summer of 1902, an Armenian boy, > Georgie Hagopian, and his uncle climbed to the Ark that > was reportedly sticking out of an ice pack. The boy > climbed over the Ark and was able to describe it in great > detail. In 1904 Hagopian visited the Ark for a second > time. Shortly before his death in 1972, a tape recording > was made of his detailed testimony. This recording has > undergone voice analyzer tests which indicate that his > account is quite credible [h]. > > 93. A Russian pilot, flying over Ararat in World War I (1915), > thought he saw the Ark. The news of his discovery reached > the Czar, who dispatched a large expedition to the site. > The soldiers were able to locate and explore the boat, but > before they could report back to the capitol, the Russian > Revolution of 1917 had occurred. Their report disappeared, > and the soldiers were scattered. Some of them eventually > reached the United States. Various relatives and friends > have confirmed this story. > > 94. At about the time of the Russian sighting, five Turkish > soldiers, crossing Mount Ararat, claim to have encountered > the Ark; however, they did not report their story until 30 > years later when they offered to guide an American > expedition to the site. The expedition did not > materialize, and their services were not sought until > after their deaths. > > 95. During World War II, a group of Russian flyers on at least > two occasions took aerial photographs that showed the Ark > protruding out of the ice. In Berlin after the war, these > photos were shown to an American doctor who subsequently > disclosed this story. > > 96. An oil geologist, George Greene, in 1953 took a number of > photographs of the Ark from a helicopter. After returning > to the United States, Greene showed his photographs to > many people but was unable to raise financial backing for > a ground-based expedition. Finally, he went to South > America where he was killed. Although the pictures have > not been located, over 30 people have given sworn written > testimony that they saw these photographs that clearly > showed the Ark protruding from the melting ice field at > the edge of a precipice. There are many other stories in > which people claim to have seen the Ark. Some are of > questionable validity, and others are inconsistent with > many of the known details. Only the most credible are > summarized above. > > a) Violet M. Cummings, NOAH'S ARK: FACT OR FABLE? (San > Diego: Creation-Science Research Center, 1972). > b) Tim LaHaye and John D. Morris, THE ARK ON ARARAT (San > Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1976). > c) John Warwick Montgomery, THE QUEST FOR NOAH'S ARK > (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., > 1972). > d) John D. Morris, ADVENTURE ON ARARAT (El Cajon, CA: > Institute for Creation Research, 1973). > e) Rene Noorbergen, THE ARK FILE (California: Pacific > Press Publishing, 1974). > f) Violet M. Cummings, HAS ANYBODY REALLY SEEN NOAH'S > ARK? (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1982). > g) Dave Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, Jr., IN SEARCH > OF NOAH'S ARK (Los Angeles: Sun Classic Books, 1976). > h) Rene Noorbergen, SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES > (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1977), p. > 74-92. > > > TO BE CONTINUED > > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown Noah's Ark is not evidence for creationism, nor is it evidence against evolution. It would be an excellent argument for the accuracy (within the limits of the author's knowledge) of the Bible. A little analysis of the words used in the account of the Flood suggests that many possible interpretations of the extent of the Flood are possible. (Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but it doesn't seem implausible that the Flood is a memory of the great flooding that occurred at the end of the Ice Age. Perhaps it's just a memory of the spectacular flooding in the Fertile Crescent which has left its evidence in Ur.)
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (07/21/85)
> > 108. magnetic patterns of the ocean floor > > These magnetic patterns also link various pieces of the contenents seperated > by oceans of water. This is proof of contenental drift and therefore dates > the earth far in excess of the 6000 years many fundementalist Christians rigidly > adhere to as the true age of the earth. Incidentally, "continental drift" (now more commonly called "plate tectonics") has also been verified lately by very careful measurements (including laser rangefinding via the moon). To give you some idea of the speed involved, the Pacific plate is moving towards Asia at 10 cm per year. -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/22/85)
>[Ron Kukuk and THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE] > > 58. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating > techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been > essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also > been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This > bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even > though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. Nope. The behavior of nuclei isn't all that hard to understand, given quantum mechanics. (Of course, some creationists seem not to believe in quantum mechanics...) Furthermore, our understanding of nuclei tells us that if, for some unknown reason, the laws (or 'constants') of physics are changing in such a way as to change radioactive decay rates and leave everything else alone, the decay rates of different isotopes would change at different rates. In other words, the fact that several (at least 4 that I know of) different decay chains all give the same age for the earth (to within the margin of error, of course) indicates that the decay rates have not changed, at least not significantly. And speaking of bold, critical, and untestable assumptions, you seem to be claiming that decay rates used to be high enough that what we now think of as 4.5 billion years worth of decay could have occurred in only 10,000 years. This means, of course, that the average decay rate over those 10,000 years was 450,000 times what it is now. Using a linear extrapolation, this means that a year ago, they were 91 times what they are now. (Hmm, must not be linear :-) Even without nuclear theory, this seems a mite hard on the credulity. Is this what you creationists believe, or do you think God created the earth with rocks with funny isotope compositions? -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/22/85)
>> [discussion of the accuracy of C-14 dating] >[Yosi Hoshen] >The creationist are trying to confuse the issues. The half life of >carbon 14 is few thousand years, therefore, it is not useful for >dating objects on a prehistorical scale. Not true. If I remember correctly, current techniques allow carbon dating to be used on objects as old as 500,000 years. Although carbon dating is not important in the case for an old earth, it is important to those who claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old. This is why I was inquiring about tree-ring dating, since I was under the impression that it went back further than 10,000 years. > Evolution time scales >are order of magnitude larger. I don't see the point of bringing >carbon dating into the discussion unless you are trying to confuse >the uninformed. Based on the rest of Kukuk's postings, you're probably right. But go on... >Returning to the point of the accuracy of the technique. The rate of decay >of radioactive isotopes does not vary with time. So we think. The creationists tend to claim otherwise, but they're very thin on evidence. See my other posting on the subject. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/23/85)
Clayton, I appreciate your comments on "the scientific case for creation" etc. However, could you paraphrase, or reference the original articles, or whatever? Your last 5 articles, combined, contained 20% original text, and 80% quotations. The "116 categories" really don't merit reposting. We have all read them in their entirety, once was enough! A couple sentences would adequately set the stage for your rebuttals. Not just you, of course, but everyone. Even at 1200 baud, it is getting to be a problem. Thanks. -- I never know what to put in these damn .signature files. Everybody expects me to be clever, or profound, or cute, or funny. I just can't take the pressure any more. They're out to get ... Doctor? ... Hey, where are you going? My session isn't over yet!!! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (07/28/85)
> > 71. Over twenty-seven billion tons of river sediments are > > entering the oceans each year. Probably, this rate of > > sediment transport was even greater in the past as the > > looser top soil was removed and as erosion reduced the > > earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the > > sediments that are now on the ocean floor would have > > accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the > > continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a]. > > [same reasoning, arguing that continents would have been eroded in > > a fairly short time.] Using a slightly-higher figure (based upon sediment flux measurements in major river systems), we're looking at an average rate of erosion of around 6 cm of continental surface (at a density of 2.4 gm/cm^3) per 1,000 years. Deposited oceanic sediments being less dense (say .8 gm/cm^3, dried density) and factoring in the ratio of 3/7 continental surface area/ocean bottom area, this would produce roughly 6 cm of ocean-bottom sediment every 1,000 years. At this rate, the continents (which are, on the average, only 840 meters high) would be worn down in roughly 50 million years. These sorts of back-of-the-evelope calculations are interesting, but completely ignore several different major processes: volcano building, folding & upthrusting (there is a fair amount of limestone on the continents), and isostatic adjustments. In particular, volcanic eruptions around the world produce roughly the same order of magnitude of material that erosion takes away. Nor, can you ignore the extensive variations in erosion (64% of Australia doesn't drain into the sea, although 90% of North America does); and that the major portion of the sedimentary debris ends up on the margins of the continents (only about 6% of the eroded sediment actually makes it to the deep ocean). The work of erosive processes varies considerably over the surface of our world. Extensive evidence indicates that much of the continental material is quite old, while the current ocean bottom is relatively young (a few hundred million years). That's reasonably explained by our current understanding of subduction in plate tectonics. > > 73. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, > > lead, silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering > > the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small > > quantities of these elements already in the oceans. There > > is no known means by which large amounts of these elements > > can precipitate out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans > > must be very much younger than a million years. Reef-building coral incorporates uranium into their CaC02 extensively, providing a "sink" for uranium (and Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra as well). Lead is virtually insoluble in the oceans, and thus they essentially contain none (it stays in particulate form). Elements with a +2 valence (notably Ni, Co, Cu) show up in relatively high concentrations in deep sea sediments, precipitating out rather rapidly. Silicon is quite effectively used by a number of species of diatoms & radiolarians, and the settling of their skeletons is almost certainly the major "sink" in the occeans (for at least some of the species, silicon is bio-limiting: give them more silicon, and they'll glady use it, grow, prosper, and fairly quickly die and deposit it). -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Hawaii Institute of Geophysics Computing Facilities Honolulu, Hawaii
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (07/28/85)
> >> [discussion of the accuracy of C-14 dating] > > >[Yosi Hoshen] > >The creationist are trying to confuse the issues. The half life of > >carbon 14 is few thousand years, therefore, it is not useful for > >dating objects on a prehistorical scale. > > Not true. If I remember correctly, current techniques allow carbon dating > to be used on objects as old as 500,000 years... To set the record straight, the average C14 atom takes 8200 years to decay. As time goes on, there are fewer C14 atoms in a particular sample to decay, and the resulting "half life" is thus 5700 years. At an age of about 40,000 years, less than 1% of the original C14 remains. Since we're talking about an original ratio of about one C14 atom per 10^12 total C atoms, the drop by two more orders of magnitude makes measurement even more difficult. It's also reasonable to consider that Carbon exchange by diffusion can add some uncertainty. In current practice, a date beyond 60,000 years would be difficult to believe. C14 dating has been cross-correlated with historical events, tree ring counts, coral growth ring counts, pollen, and K-Ar dating (charcoal from burned trees in lava flows). While there may have been some small deviations in the C14/totalC ratio in the past atmosphere & ocean, there certainly was a major increase following the atmospheric nuclear tests of the 1950's. This is one (of several) clearly distinguishable radioactive tracers that can be used to accurately determine sedimentation rates all over the world during the past few decades. -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Hawaii Institute of Geophysics Computing Facilities Honolulu, Hawaii