Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!iham1!rck From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 41) Message-ID: <399@iham1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 21:58:30 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.399 Posted: Tue Jul 2 21:58:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:18:54 EDT Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 79 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 Brown