Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 38)
Message-ID: <545@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 17:20:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.545
Posted: Wed Jul 10 17:20:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:42:54 EDT
References: <396@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 61
Summary: 

In article <396@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
>    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
>
>    C.  MOST DATING TECHNIQUES  INDICATE  THAT  THE  EARTH  AND  SOLAR
>        SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
>
>       70.  The occurrence of abnormally high gas  and  oil  pressures
>            within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids
>            were formed or encased less  than  10,000  years  ago.  If
>            these hydrocarbons had been trapped OVER 10,000 years ago,
>            leakage would have dropped the pressure  to  a  level  far
>            below what it is today [a].
>
	What? Leakage? Where? Why? I see no reason why a geological
formation in situ must necessarily leak contained fluids! Why don't
you read the article on "fossil" natural reactors in Scientific
American for a discussion of just how stable some formations can be!
>
>       71.  Over twenty-seven billion  tons  of  river  sediments  are
>            entering  the  oceans  each  year.  Probably, this rate of
>            sediment transport was even greater in  the  past  as  the
>            looser  top  soil  was  removed and as erosion reduced the
>            earth's relief. But even if erosion has been constant, the
>            sediments  that  are  now  on  the  ocean floor would have
>            accumulated in  only  30  million  years.  Therefore,  the
>            continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old [a].
>
	As has been pointed out, this ignores various forms of
recycling, such as subduction and orogony. It is also an example of
the extrapolation fallacy. The error is this, the further a trend is
extrapolated beyond its basis in measurement, the less reliable it is.
Thus current rates of sedimentation are a poor estimate of such rates
more than a few thousand years ago. And the current rates may be
either higher *or* lower than past rates.
>
>       72.  The continents are being eroded at a rate that would level
>            them  in  much  less than twenty-five million years [a,b].
>            However, evolutionists believe that the  fossils  of  land
>            animals  and  plants that are at high elevations have been
>            there for over 300 million years.
>
>
>       73.  The rate at which elements  such  as  copper,  gold,  tin,
>            lead,  silicon,  mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering
>            the oceans is very rapid  when  compared  with  the  small
>            quantities of these elements already in the oceans.  There
>            is no known means by which large amounts of these elements
>            can  precipitate  out of the oceans. Therefore, the oceans
>            must be very much younger than a million years.
>
	Recycling and invalid extrapolation again!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen