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