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!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 37)
Message-ID: <395@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 14:52:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.395
Posted: Tue Jul  2 14:52:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 08:36:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 76


     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.  Evolution requires an old earth and an old
        solar  system.  Without  billions  of  years,  virtually   all
        informed  evolutionists  will admit that their theory is dead.
        But by hiding the ''origins question'' behind the veil of vast
        periods  of  time, the unsolvable problems of evolution become
        difficult for scientists to see and  laymen  to  imagine.  Our
        media  and textbooks have implied for over a century that this
        almost unimaginable age is correct, but practically  never  do
        they  examine  the  shaky  assumptions  and  growing  body  of
        contrary  evidence.  Therefore,  most   people   instinctively
        believe  that  things  are old, and it is disturbing (at least
        initially) to hear evidence that our  origins  are  relatively
        recent.   Actually  most  dating  techniques indicate that the
        earth and solar system are young--possibly  less  than  10,000
        years old. Listed below are just a few of these evidences.

       68.  The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium,
            from  just  the  decay  of  uranium  and thorium. Detailed
            experimentation [a] has shown that there is no known means
            by  which  large  amounts  of  helium  can escape from the
            atmosphere, even when considering the low atomic weight of
            helium. The atmosphere appears to be young [b].

            a)  ''What  Happened  to   the   Earth's   Helium?''   NEW
                SCIENTIST, Vol.420, 3 December 1964, pp. 631-632.
            b)  Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH  MODELS  (London:
                Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.

       69.  Lead diffuses (or leaks) from  zircon  crystals  at  known
            rates that increase with temperature. Since these crystals
            are found at different  depths  in  the  earth,  those  at
            greater  depths  and  temperatures  should have less lead.
            Even if the earth's crust is just a fraction  of  the  age
            that  is  claimed  by  evolutionists,  there  should  be a
            measurable difference in the lead content  of  zircons  in
            the top 4000 meters. Actually, no measurable difference is
            found [a,b]. Similar conclusions are reached from a  study
            of the helium contained in these same zircon crystals [c].
            In fact, these helium studies lead to  a  conclusion  that
            the earth's crust is only thousands of years old [d].

            a)  Robert V. Gentry, Thomas J. Sworski, Henry S.  McKown,
                David   H.   Smith,   R.E.  Eby,  and  W.H.  Christie,
                ''Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications
                for  Nuclear  Waste  Containment,''  SCIENCE, 16 April
                1982, pp. 296-298.
            b)  Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,'' PHYSICS TODAY,  October
                1982, pp. 13-14.
            c)  Robert V. Gentry, ''Letters,''  PHYSICS  TODAY,  April
                1983, p. 13.
            d)  Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24  February
                1984.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown