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 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: Fri, 28-Jun-85 06:34:55 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