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!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 41)
Message-ID: <399@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 21:58:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.399
Posted: Tue Jul  2 21:58:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 09:18:54 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 79


     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.

       78.  Since 1754, observations of the moon's orbit indicate that
            it  is  receding  from  the  earth  [a]. As tidal friction
            gradually slows the earth's  spin,  the  laws  of  physics
            require  the  moon  to recede from the earth. But the moon
            should have moved from near the  earth's  surface  to  its
            present  distance  in several billion years less time than
            the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the
            earth  and  moon. Consequently, the earth-moon system must
            be much younger than evolutionists assume.

            a)  Walter  H.  Munk  and  Gordon  J.  F.  MacDonald,  THE
                ROTATION OF THE EARTH (Cambridge: Cambridge University
                Press, 1975), p. 198.

       79.  If the moon were billions of years  old,  it  should  have
            accumulated   a   thick   layer   of  space  dust.  Before
            instruments were placed on  the  moon,  NASA  and  outside
            scientists  [a]  were  very  concerned that our astronauts
            would  sink  into  a  sea  of  dust--possibly  a  mile  in
            thickness. This did not happen. There is very little space
            dust on the moon. In fact, after examining the  rocks  and
            dust  brought back from the moon, it was learned that only
            about  1/60th  of  the  one  or  two  inch  surface  layer
            originated from outer space [b,c]. Recent measurements [d]
            of the influx rate also do not support the thin  layer  of
            meteoritic  dust  on  the  moon, even if this rate were no
            higher  in  the  past.  Of  course  the   rate   of   dust
            accumulation  on the moon should have been much greater in
            the past. Conclusion: the moon is probably quite young.

            a)  Before instruments were sent to the moon, Isaac Asimov
                made  some  interesting (but false) predictions. After
                estimating the great depths of dust that should be  on
                the  moon,  Asimov  dramatically  ended his article by
                stating: ''I get a picture, therefore,  of  the  first
                spaceship,  picking out a nice level place for landing
                purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first . .  and
                sinking  majestically  out  of sight.'' [Isaac Asimov,
                ''14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,'' SCIENCE  DIGEST,
                January 1959, p. 36.]
            b)  Herbert A. Zook, ''The State of Meteoritic Material on
                the   Moon,''   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE  LUNAR  SCIENCE
                CONFERENCE (6th), 1975, pp. 1653-1672.
            c)  Stuart Ross Taylor, LUNAR SCIENCE: A POST-APOLLO  VIEW
                (New York:  Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 92.
            d)  David  W.  Hughes,   ''The   Changing   Micrometeoriod
                Influx,''  NATURE,  Vol. 251, 4 October 1974, pp. 379-
                380. Taylor, pp. 84, 92.  Computations  based  on  the
                data contained in the preceding two references support
                a dust layer on the moon of at least 3.8 feet. If  the
                influx  was  greater  than it is at present, as almost
                all scientists believe, then the thickness of the dust
                layer would be even greater.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown