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!linus!decvax!mcnc!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 31)
Message-ID: <385@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 21:54:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.385
Posted: Thu Jun 27 21:54:35 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 04:17:34 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 67


     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.

       57.  Any estimated date  prior  to  the  beginning  of  written
            records  must necessarily assume that the dating clock has
            operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of  the
            clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed.
            These  assumptions   are   almost   always   unstated   or
            overlooked.

       58.  A major assumption that underlies all  radioactive  dating
            techniques  is  that  the  rates of decay, which have been
            essentially constant over the past  70  years,  have  also
            been  constant  over  the  past  4,600,000,000 years. This
            bold, critical, and untestable  assumption  is  made  even
            though   no  one  knows  what  causes  radioactive  decay.
            Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence  that  suggests
            that  radioactive  decay  has not always been constant but
            has varied by many orders of magnitude from that  observed
            today [a,b].

            a)  Robert V. Gentry, ''Radiohalos in Coalified Wood:  New
                Evidence  Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction
                and  Coalification,''  SCIENCE,  Vol.194,  15  October
                1976, pp. 315-317.
            b)  Robert V. Gentry, ''On the  Invariance  of  the  Decay
                Constant  Over  Geological  Time,''  CREATION RESEARCH
                SOCIETY QUARTERLY, Vol.5, September 1968, pp. 83-84.

       59.  The  public  has  been  greatly  misled   concerning   the
            consistency,    reliability,    and   trustworthiness   of
            radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method,
            the  Rubidium-Strontium  method,  and the Uranium-Thorium-
            Lead method).  Many of the published dates can be  checked
            by  comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that
            sometimes lie above and below radiometrically dated  rock.
            In  over  400  of these published checks (about half), the
            radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic
            age  in  error--indicating major errors in methodology. An
            unanswered question is, ''How  many  other  dating  checks
            were NOT PUBLISHED because they too were in error?'' [a,b]

            a)  John    Woodmorappe,    ''Radiometric    Geochronology
                Reappraised,''  CREATION  RESEARCH  SOCIETY QUARTERLY,
                Vol.16, September, 1979, pp. 102-129.
            b)  Robert H. Brown, ''Graveyard Clocks:  Do  They  Really
                Tell Time?'', SIGNS OF THE TIMES, June 1982, pp. 8-9.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown