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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 28)
Message-ID: <378@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 13:16:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.378
Posted: Mon Jun 24 13:16:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:59:58 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 56


     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.

       50.  The cosmic background radiation is considered by  many  to
            be  the  major  evidence  supporting  the Big Bang Theory.
            However, recent measurements of this radiation  above  the
            earth's atmosphere indicate that it is not consistent with
            the Big Bang hypothesis [a-c]. Nor  is  the  abundance  of
            helium in the universe consistent with the Big Bang [d,e].
            Furthermore, if the Big Bang occurred, the universe should
            not  contain  lumpy  [f-h]  or rotating bodies. Since both
            types of bodies are seen [i], it is doubtful that the  Big
            Bang occurred.

            a)  H.  P.  Gush,  ''Rocket  Measurement  of  the   Cosmic
                Background  Submillimeter  Spectrum,'' PHYSICAL REVIEW
                LETTERS, Vol.47, No. 10, 7 September  1981,  pp.  745-
                748.
            b)  Kandiah Shivanandan, James R.  Houck,  and  Martin  O.
                Harwit, ''Preliminary Observations of the Far-Infrared
                Night-Sky  Background  Radiation,''  PHYSICAL   REVIEW
                LETTERS, 11 November 1968, Vol. 21, pp. 1460-1462.
            c)  ''Freak Result Verified,'' NATURE, Vol.223, 23  August
                1969, pp. 779-780.
            d)  Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS,  AND  THE  BIBLE
                (Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 207-208.
            e)  D.W.  Sciama,  MODERN  COSMOLOGY  (London:   Cambridge
                University Press, 1971), pp. 149-155.
            f)  Geoffrey Burbidge, ''Was There Really  a  Big  Bang?''
                NATURE, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
            g)  Ben Patrusky, ''Why Is the Cosmos  'Lumpy'?''  SCIENCE
                81, June 1981, p. 96.
            h)  ''Deep Redshift Survey of Galaxies  Suggests  Million-
                Mpc**3  Void,''  PHYSICS TODAY, January 1982, Vol. 35,
                pp. 17-19.
            i)  Stephen   A.   Gregory   and   Laird   A.    Thompson,
                ''Superclusters  and  Voids  in  the  Distribution  of
                Galaxies,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 1982, pp.  106-
                114.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown