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 26)
Message-ID: <375@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 13:16:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.375
Posted: Wed Jun 19 13:16:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 09:46:09 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.

       42.  The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust  clouds  or
            gas  clouds  lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never
            condense to form planets [a].

            a)  Paul M. Steidl, THE EARTH, THE STARS,  AND  THE  BIBLE
                (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 106.

       43.  Saturn's  rings   could   not   have   formed   from   the
            disintegration  of  a former satellite or from the capture
            of external material; the particles in these rings are too
            small  and  too  evenly distributed throughout orbits that
            are too  circular.  Therefore,  the  rings  appear  to  be
            remnants of Saturn's creation.

       44.  Naturalistic theories on  the  moon's  origin  are  highly
            speculative  and completely inadequate [a,b]. The moon was
            not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the  same
            material  as  the  earth  since  its  orbital plane is too
            highly inclined. Furthermore, the relative  abundances  of
            its  elements  are  too dissimilar from those of the earth
            [c]. The moon's circular orbit  is  also  strong  evidence
            that  it  was never torn from or captured by the earth [d-
            f]. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the  earth,
            other particles should be easily visible inside the moon's
            orbit; none are. If the  moon  was  not  pulled  from  the
            earth,  was  not  built up from smaller particles near its
            present orbit, and  was  not  captured  from  outside  its
            present  orbit,  only  one proposal remains. The moon must
            have been created in its present orbit.

            a)  ''The whole subject of the origin of the moon must  be
                regarded  as  highly speculative.'' [Robert C. Haymes,
                INTRODUCTION TO SPACE SCIENCE (New York: John Wiley  &
                Sons, Inc., 1971), p. 209.]
            b)  ''Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning  chemist  and
                lunar  scientist,  expresses  his  attitude: 'I do not
                know the origin of the moon. I'm not sure of my own or
                any  other's  models.  I'd lay odds against any of the
                models proposed being correct.'''  [John  C.  Whitcomb
                and Donald B. DeYoung, THE MOON (Winona Lake, Indiana:
                BHM Books, 1978), p. 50.]
            c)  Haymes, p.  209.
            d)  Steidl, pp. 77-79.
            e)  M. Mitchell  Waldrop,  ''The  Origin  of  the  Moon,''
                SCIENCE, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606-607.
            f)  Frank D. Stacey, PHYSICS OF THE EARTH (New York:  John
                Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969), pp. 38-39.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown