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 A)
Message-ID: <407@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 19:37:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.407
Posted: Mon Jul  8 19:37:46 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:04:08 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 66

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FAVORITE MYTHS ***

    Before he went on vacation, Ron Kukuk gave us several installments of
 Walter Brown's theses in support of creationism (or, more precisely, in
 critique of contemporary science).  Trying to avoid both quoting the original
 submission and going outside of my expertise, I would like to make selected
 comments on some of the items.

 46.  The First Law of Thermodynamics applied to the universe.

    Since thermodynamics is an empirical study, its applicability to the entire
 universe is suspect.  Energy conservation is a trusted principle in science,
 but not sacred or countlessly tested.  Refer to my comments on "Re: A new
 voice" for more detail.

 47.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to the universe.

    Since classical thermodynamics assumes systems at equilibrium (no gradients
 or localized concentrations) without long-range correlations (long-range
 forces include electrostatics and gravitation), the arguments about the second
 law do not apply to the universe as a whole.  Notice also that whether or not
 the universe is isolated in a thermodynamic sense is different than the issue
 of whether or not the universe is open or closed in a dynamic sense (due to
 self-gravitation).  The original statement proceeds in assuming a resolution
 to the isolated universe question (If...) without explicitly discussing the
 answer.

 54.  Not seeing any stars being born.

    Since a nova or supernova produces many orders of magnitude more light than
 a star undergoing formation, it is not unreasonable that star births would be
 much more difficult to observe.  In fact, novae or supernovae are often
 observed where no star was observable before.  Recently, a few articles have
 appeared discussing the observations of possible stellar formations.  This
 issue seems to be more of a sampling or observational problem than a property
 of nature.  Below a certain mass limit, stars die quietly by going through
 successive dwarf stages, and these deaths would not be readily observable
 either.  Note that the only reference given here is for a creationist text.

 56.  Galaxies do/do not evolve from one type to another.

    When just beginning graduate school, I recall that galactic evolution was
 still treated as a research topic.  The increasing availability of
 supercomputers should assist in evaluating this issue.  Perhaps some
 astronomer can provide us with the latest thinking on this.  Again, the only
 references supplied are for creationists' texts.

 57.  Dates prior to written records assume a dating clock.

    This appears straight out of Newton's concept of an absolute time standard.
 The mention of a dating clock does not seem to bear on any scientific issue
 though science uses several dating methods.  The requirement that a single
 dating clock exists seems superfluous.  Also, the statement implies that
 written records serve as an accurate dating clock, which is not correct if the
 problems between the biblical and Egyptian/Greek/Babylonian chronologies, and
 Old and New Testament genealogies, are examined.  Where applicable,
 radioactive decay is about as reliable as you might want.  Before the
 development of the maser, the timing standard (cesium clock) derived from
 radioactive decay.

                               (To be continued)


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