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 45)
Message-ID: <403@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:32:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.403
Posted: Wed Jul  3 09:32:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 04:20:06 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.

       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 Brown