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 25)
Message-ID: <374@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 13:32:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.374
Posted: Tue Jun 18 13:32:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 20:01:34 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 114


     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.

        Many undisputed observations of our  solar  system  contradict
        the  current  theories  on how the solar system evolved [a-c].
        According to these evolutionary theories:

       37.  All planets should  rotate  on  their  axes  in  the  same
            direction, but Venus and Uranus rotate backwards [d,e].

       38.  All 49 moons in our solar system  should  revolve  in  the
            same  direction, but at least six revolve backwards [d,e].
            Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn,  Uranus,  and  Neptune  have
            moons going in both directions.

       39.  The orbits of  these  49  moons  should  all  lie  in  the
            equatorial  plane  of  the  planet  they  orbit, but many,
            including the earth's moon, are in highly inclined  orbits
            [d].

       40.  The material of the earth (as well  as  Mars,  Venus,  and
            Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium--similar
            to that of the sun  and  rest  of  the  visible  universe;
            actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen
            or helium [d,e].

       41.  The sun should have 700 times more angular  momentum  than
            the  planets;  in  fact,  the  planets have 200 times more
            angular momentum than the sun [d,e].

	Intro.
            a)  ''To sum up, I think that all  suggested  accounts  of
                the  origin of the Solar System are subject to serious
                objections. The conclusion in the present state of the
                subject  would be that the system cannot exist.'' [Sir
                Harold Jeffreys, THE EARTH: ITS ORIGIN,  HISTORY,  AND
                PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION, 6th edition (Cambridge England:
                Cambridge University Press, 1976), p.387.]
            b)  ''But if we had a reliable theory  of  the  origin  of
                planets,  if we knew of some mechanism consistent with
                the laws of physics so that we understood how  planets
                form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate
                the  probability  that  other  stars  have   attendant
                planets.  However,  no such theory exists yet, despite
                the large number of  hypotheses  suggested.''  [R.  A.
                Lyttleton,  MYSTERIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, 6th edition
                (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.]
            c)  ''A  great  array  of  observational  facts  must   be
                explained  by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution
                of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent
                with  the  principles  of dynamics and modern physics.
                All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or
                remain  unproved,  when  physical  theory  is properly
                applied.'' [Fred L. Whipple, EARTH, MOON, AND  PLANETS
                (Cambridge,  Massachusetts:  Harvard University Press,
                1970), p. 243.]

           37.
            d)  Donald H. Menzel, ASTRONOMY (New York:  Random  House,
                1970), pp. 178, 198-199.
            e)  John C. Whitcomb, Jr., THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR  SYSTEM
                (New  Jersey:   Presbyterian  and  Reformed Publishing
                Co., 1977), p. 16.

           38.
            d)  Laurence A. Soderblom and Torrence V.  Johnson,  ''The
                Moons  of Saturn,'' SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January 1982,
                p. 101.
            e)  John Charles Duncan, ASTRONOMY  (New  York:  Harper  &
                Brothers, 1954), p. 481.

           39.
            d)  Duncan, p. 481.

           40.
            d)  VAN NOSTRAND'S SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  (Van  Nostrand
                Reinhold Co., 5th edition, 1976), pp. 493-494.
            e)  ''First, we see that material torn from the Sun  would
                not  be  at  all  suitable  for  the  formation of the
                planets as we know  them.  Its  composition  would  be
                hopelessly   wrong.  And  our  second  point  in  this
                contrast is that it is the Sun that is normal and  the
                Earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most
                of the stars are composed of material  like  the  Sun,
                not   like   the  earth.  You  must  understand  that,
                cosmically speaking, the room you are now  sitting  in
                is  made  of  the  wrong  stuff.  You, yourself, are a
                rarity.  You are a cosmic collector's  piece.''  [Fred
                Hoyle,  ''The  Nature  of  the  Universe,''  Part  IV,
                HARPER'S MAGAZINE, March 1951, p. 65.]

           41.
            d)  R. A. Lyttleton, MYSTERIES OF THE  SOLAR  SYSTEM,  6th
                edition  (Oxford,  England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p.
                16.
            e)  Fred Hoyle, THE COSMOLOGY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM  (Enslow
                Publishers, 1979), p. 11-12.

                                 TO BE CONTINUED


      III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown