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!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Comments on: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part C)
Message-ID: <409@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 14:58:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.409
Posted: Wed Jul 10 14:58:20 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 01:46:54 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 58


 79.  The moon should have a very thick layer of dust.

    This is related to point 75 dealing with dust accumulation on the Earth.
 One of the contributors to A. Montagu's book *Science and Creationism* showed
 how the creationist author purposely picked through old discussions, ignoring
 more recent estimates, to support an argument for a young solar system.  The
 original Scientific American author was even referenced out of context in
 order to arrive at the thick dust estimate (the uncertainty was ignored).

 82.   Jupiter and Saturn are radiating more energy than they receive.

    Yes, Jupiter and Saturn appear to be radiating more energy in the far
 infrared than they are receiving from the sun.  The article then lists the
 major energy sources for proto-suns, and proceeds to assert that this excess
 radiated energy comes from cooling off.  What happened to these planets that
 they must cool off?  What generated the original heat?  Surely creation is not
 a heat generating process!

 85.   The sun is shrinking by 0.1% per century.

    This item was just breaking when I finished graduate school.  There was
 discussion about its effects on the Earth's climate and if some terrestrial
 evidence might be found to support or refute the shrinking sun claims.  Some
 of the early problems included establishing the magnitude of the effect, and
 disentangling it from different observational techniques and the Earth's
 recession from the sun.  Anyone have more recent information?

 88-95.  Support for the existence of Noah's Ark.

    While not possessing any evidence one way or another concerning the
 existence and location of Noah's Ark, the references that were provided are of
 the same style as descriptions of the Yeti and Bigfoot.  All of these may
 exist, but they have proven very difficult to document and record clearly.

 97.   Glaciers and the ice age are better explained by a flood.

    There is evidence for a series of ice ages.  Does that mean that this
 evidence also provides support for several worldwide floods?

 104.   Extinction of the dinosaurs are better explained by a flood.

    However, a flood does not explain the simultaneous extinction of marine
 life at the time of the dinosaur extinctions.  With evidence of several mass
 life extinctions, I am intrigued by the possibility of periodic catastrophes
 such as large meteoric impacts at 26-33 million year intervals.

 114.  Practically every culture has flood legends.

    An additional example of the same logical fallacy:  A million flies can't
 be wrong.  Eat manure!

                               (To be continued)


                            Patrick Wyant
                            AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                            *!iham1!gjphw