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 15)
Message-ID: <353@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-May-85 23:52:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.353
Posted: Sat May 11 23:52:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 06:12:27 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 47


     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE

I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.

    A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. (See 1-13.)

    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
        WISHFUL THINKING.  (See 14-24.)

    C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
        COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
        IT.

       27.  If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins  arose
            by  chance  processes, there is not the remotest reason to
            believe that they  could  ever  form  a  membrane-encased,
            self-reproducing,  metabolizing, living cell.  There is no
            evidence that there are  any  stable  states  between  the
            assumed   naturalistic   formation  of  proteins  and  the
            formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever
            advanced  a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump
            in complexity could have occurred--even  if  the  universe
            were completely filled with proteins [a].

            a)  Experts in this field hardly ever discuss this  matter
                publicly.   However,  the leading evolutionists in the
                world know that this problem exists. For  example,  in
                an  approved  transcript  of  a  taped  interview with
                Dr.David Raup of the Field Museum of  Natural  History
                in  Chicago, Luther D. Sunderland commented to Dr.Raup
                that ''Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum of
                Natural  History]  nor  Dr.  Eldredge [of the American
                Museum  of  Natural  History]  could   give   me   any
                explanation  of  the  origination of the first cell.''
                Dr. Raup replied, ''I can't either.''

                                      ...


   II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

                               TO BE CONTINUED

  III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown