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!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 20)
Message-ID: <365@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 13:17:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.365
Posted: Tue May 28 13:17:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 01:41:50 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 58


     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    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR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.

       32.  Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come  in  two
            forms  that  are  chemically equivalent: about half can be
            described  as  ''right-handed''  and  the  other  half  as
            ''left-handed''  (a  structural  description--one  is  the
            mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules
            found  in  virtually  all forms of life, including plants,
            animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only  the
            left-handed  variety.  The  mathematical  probability that
            chance processes  could  produce  JUST  ONE  tiny  protein
            molecule  with  only  left-handed amino acids is virtually
            zero [a,b].

            a)  James F. Coppedge, EVOLUTION: POSSIBLE OR  IMPOSSIBLE?
                (Grand  Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp.
                71-79.
            b)  ''Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for  the
                source  of  the  variations  needed to fuel evolution,
                there is an enormous probability problem at  the  core
                of  Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been
                cited by hundreds  of  scientists  and  professionals.
                Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who
                have looked without prejudice at the  notion  of  such
                variations  producing ever more complex organisms have
                come to the same  conclusion:  The  evolutionists  are
                assuming  the  impossible.   ''Even  if  we  take  the
                simplest large protein  molecule  that  can  reproduce
                itself  if  immersed  in a bath of nutrients, the odds
                against this developing by chance range  from  one  in
                10**450   (engineer   Marcel   Goulay   in  ANALYTICAL
                CHEMISTRY) to  one  in  10**600  (Frank  Salisbury  in
                AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER).'' [William R. Fix, THE BONE
                PEDDLERS:  SELLING  EVOLUTION  (New  York:  Macmillan,
                1984), p. 196.]

                                      ...


   II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

                               TO BE CONTINUED

  III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown