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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 30)
Message-ID: <381@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 14:04:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.381
Posted: Wed Jun 26 14:04:09 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 07:36:13 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 68


     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 Brown