To: All Msg #11, Apr0293 06:00PM Subject: Re: Evolution battle continues. In article 1993A

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Loren I. Petrich To: All Msg #11, Apr-02-93 06:00PM Subject: Re: Evolution battle continues... Organization: LLNL From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) Message-ID: <1pir43$svr@s1.gov> Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.origins In article <1993Apr2.192618.9568@umr.edu> SPARROW@physics.umr.edu writes: : This is something to think about... : (Thanks to the gentleman who sent it to me.) :-) [There are whole FAQ files on this subject kept by Jim Meritt and other talk.origins readers...] : Relevant Arguments against Evolution : 1) Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation), or the emergence of life : from inorganic material, has never been observed. So? Neither has "Special Creation". One has to use lab conditions because the posited conditions are just the thing for present-day organisms. Hot springs are a current favorite, but even they are infested with microbes that subsist on the chemicals they release. : 2) Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical : variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog : family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day : refinements is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding : experiments have also confirmed that these boundaries exist. The "dog family"? What's the "dog family"? One can go beyond the boundaries of the available genes by modifying them. It's that simple. : 3) Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Such things as stretched necks can't, but genes from viruses copied into germ cells can. And what's the relevance, anyway? : 4) Natural Selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects : among pre-existing characteristics. And new ones also. : 5) Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic : material becomes available for evolution. However all (perhaps : all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal. Mutations for improved survival in a new environment do happen. Just consider bacteria and insects that become resistant to attempts to poison them (antibiotics and pesticides). : 6) No know mutation has ever produced a form of life having both : greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors. Gene duplication does. Polyploid speciation is known to occur. Gene sequencing reveals that many genes come in families, suggesting duplications of ancestral genes. Hemoglobin is a classic example. Immune-system genes and Homeobox genes are other examples. : 7) Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 : consecutive human generations, give no basis for believing that any : natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity : and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed : despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. Again, it is a relative issue. Fruit flies in their natural environment may be as "good" in it as they possibly can. I wonder how many experiments have been done to make them try to adapt to different temperature or humidity, for example. : 8) There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever any new : organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain. No _single_ mutations. But lots of them, improving on simple structures. : 9) The many similarities between different species do not : necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a : common designer. I will concede that the Philip Gosse _Omphalos_ hypothesis, criticized as divine fraudulence [i.e. God decieving us], is irrefutable. But it also irrelevant. : 10) The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does : not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our evolutionary : ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has increased, the : functions of almost all of these organs have been discovered. The appendix is pretty low on functionality. The only "function" cited is that of carrying lymph nodes, but lymph nodes are lymph nodes and can reside elsewhere. Vestigial features are legion in the biological world: Wings of flightless birds Extra toe bones of hoofed animals Lesbian sex practiced by certain parthenogenetic lizards Solid-color equines having the genes for zebra stripes Flies sometimes growing legs in place of their antennae and four instead of two wings Baleen whale and cow fetuses having teeth later absorbed Cetacean hipbones Animals with forward-pointing eyes having sideways-pointing eyes as embryos Human toes and "wisdom teeth" Big hind legs of some four-legged dinosaurs Fused bones in many species (why originally separate?) Hollowness of the bones of some flightless birds (dodos, penguins, etc.) Aquatic animals breathing air: sea turtles, sea snakes, sea iguanas, crocodilians, penguins, seals, and cetaceans Fishlike tadpoles of frogs and toads; gill bars in embryos of land vertebrates Human-embryo tails The amniotic sac, a vestige of an eggshell Vestigial legs of some snakes One big lung and one small lung in some snakes Alternation of generation in plants; flowering plants are diploid, but still have a tiny haploid phase Flowers of self-pollinating plants Vestigial flower parts of non-flowering angiosperms, like grasses Mitochondria and chloroplasts in cells; these were apparently once separate cells, and they retain separate genomes and transcription/translation apparatuses. : 11) As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult : stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors (recapitulation : theory). Embryologists no longer consider the superficial : similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult forms of : simpler animals as evidence of evolution. So what about recapitulation? What happens is that the embryos are much more alike than the adults, that the embryos resemble some adults more than others, and that the adults the embryos are the most like are the putative ancestors of the others (fish -> land vertebrates). : 12) There are many singe cell forms of life, but there are no forms : of life with 2, 3..., or even 20 cells. If organic evolution : happened, these forms of life should exist in great abundance. : None do. The evolutionary tree has no trunk. 1. Protist colonies do exist. 2. Intermediates can be driven into extinction. : 13) Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like man have been found : are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The : fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was pig's tooth. : The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large : gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The : fossil evidence concerning Peking man has disappeared. : Ramipethicus consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw : fragments. It is now know that these fragments were pieced : together incorrectly so as to resemble portions of the human jaw. : Detailed computer analyses of the Australopithecines have : conclusively shown that they are not intermediate between man and : apes. The Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and : Mary Leakey, are actually quite distinct from both man and apes. : For about 100 years, the world was led to believe that Neanderthal : man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this was : based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled with arthritis : and rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man : were completely human. Artists depictions, especially of the flesh : portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported : by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are questionable. The Piltdown finds were not investigated for several years because they were one-of-a-kind, and there was a widespread belief that they were a composite. Which is exactly what the hoaxer had made. DuBois changed his mind. So what? The Java find is still hominid. What computer analyses of Australopithecus? So what if the Neanderthals walked upright? Their skulls look different from modern people's skulls. : 14) If the Earth, early in its alleged evolution, had oxygen in its : atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed : by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have : been no ozone, and without ozone all life would quickly destroyed : by the sun's ultraviolet radiation. Not if they were deep in the ocean. : 15) There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to : explain how just one single protein could form from any of the : assumed atmospheres of the early Earth. The necessary chemical : reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that : required by evolution. Furthermore, each possible energy source, : whether the Earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's : radiation, would have destroyed the protein products millions of : time faster than they could be formed. Ever heard of "thermal proteins" formed in lab experiments? : 16) 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 self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living : cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states : between 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. One can go part of the way in lab experiments, but I will concede that getting to the first self-reproducer is still tough. : 17) DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes. But : these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since : each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin : of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. No : evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation. Ever heard of self-splicing RNA? A self-assembling RNA system is all that is necessary. But I will concede that the origin of the RNA is still a tough problem. : 18) The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein : molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule : could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is : far less than 1 in 10^527. The magnitude of the number 10^527 can : begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is : about 10^28 inches in diameter. All this proves is the unlikelihood of exact duplication. It's like saying it's impossible to design a car by citing the exact specifications of each part of a single car. Cars can be built to different specs, as can be seen by looking at any road. : 19) There are many instances where quite different forms of life : are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig : trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, : many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the : honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers and drones. If : one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the : plant before the animal), the other members could not have : survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, : they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. Good grief. Halfway dependence is very plausible, and sometimes happens. Plants can be wind-pollinated or pollinated by unspecialized insects. Specialization can appear later. : 20) Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain : physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by : the world's best designers using the most sophisticated : technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable : sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the : frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the : efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the : control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of : the bombadier beetle, and the precise and redundant navigational : systems of many birds and fish. The many components of these : complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a : selective disadvantage on the animal. All evidence points to a : designer. Baloney. Technology can easily beat biology in a host of fields. Furthermore, all these examples can emerge from lower-quality ones, ones that may actually be found in other species. So it is just a case of specialization. : According to the theories of Evolution of the Solar : System: : 21) The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same : direction, but Venus and Uranus rotate backwards. If they formed from collisions of progressively larger and larger bodies, offset spins are very possible. Furthermore, spin precession is sometimes chaotic, and it can also be affected by tidal drag. : 22) All 49 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same : direction, but at least 11 revolve backwards. Capture mechanics of some of the outer moons is thought to be the culprit. : 23) 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 high inclined. That may be due to the effect of collisions. : 24) The material of the Earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should : almost all be Hydrogen and Helium--similar to that of the sun and : the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the : earth's mass is hydrogen or helium. All that H and He was baked out of the inner solar system by the Sun. That's a _really_ dumb objection. : 25) 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. The Sun is magnetically active, and interacts magnetically with the Solar wind, which has spun it down. The same seems to be true of many other stars. : 26) No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, : space or time. Since each is intimately related to or even defined : in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of : one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic : explanations have completely failed. Irrelevant. : 27) 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 bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 400 of these : published checks, 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?" Where is the original reference for this? It is contrary to the Conventional Wisdom of this field. Fossil ages are relative only, though they may be calibrated by radiometric dating of nearby lava flows. : 28) Direct measurements of the Earth's magnetic field over the past : 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This : decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is : an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic : field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 yrs ago the electrical : current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could : not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the : Earth could not be older than 25,000 years. Baloney. The Earth's magnetic field is _very_ variable over time, and we are simply in one of those periods of field decline. : 29) The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, : based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium : and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of : helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to : be young. Horseshit. Helium is a _very_ light gas, and once it gets to the upper atmosphere, it is pretty easy for helium atoms to get bounced to past the Earth's escape velocity. : 30) Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at : least 1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at : a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years. According to which estimate? : 31) The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth : is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of : this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in : nickel, there should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks : of the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land or in : the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young. That meteoritic-dust figure is just plain wrong. It is really a lot less, about a few cm. : 32) If the moon were billions of years old, it should have : accumulated extensive layers of space dust--possibly 900 ft in : thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was : very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. : This did not happen; there is very little dust on the moon. : Conclusion: the moon is young. See above. Furthermore, Moon rocks have been found that are over 4 billion years old. : 33) Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the : Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made : direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun : is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about 5 feet : per hour. Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that : this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 : years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational : collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about : 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude : that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so : large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could : not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago : all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, : having completed their evolution that began a billion years ago. The Sun could simply be in a shrinking phase. Since its activity goes in irregular cycles of several hundred years, such as the "Maunder Minimum", it might also expand and shrink slightly in that time. [-------------------------------------------------------------------] [ This comes from a 1980 or 1981 paper by John Eddy. In the 13 ] [ years since then, some problems have been found with Eddy's data ] [ and numerous more measurements have been taken. The sun's ] [ diameter does oscillate, and cannot be used as a dating technique.] [ This has been acknowledged by the creationists themselves, in an ] [ article by a couple of ICR folks published in the _Creation ] [ Research Society Quarterly_ around 1988. (A bunch of references ] [ regarding the "shrinking sun" argument, including this _CRSQ_ ] [ paper, may be found in my _Creation/Evolution_ debate with ] [ Walter Brown.) ] [ ] [ I concur with Bill Jefferys that this list looks like it was ] [ lifted from Walter Brown's work. ] [ ] [ Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU ] [ Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET ] [ University of Arizona ] [ Tucson, AZ 85721 ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------] : 34) Short period comets boil off some of their mass each time they : pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about : 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. : If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, : the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old. There are plenty of long-period comets to replace them. -- /Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster /lip@s1.gov -=-=============================================================== Bill Anderson Apr-02-93 09:54PM Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) Message-ID: <2509@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> Newsgroups: talk.origins [ Article crossposted from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh ] [ Author was SPARROW@physics.umr.edu ] [ Posted on 2 Apr 93 19:26:18 GMT ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant [sic] Arguments against Evolution 1) Abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation), or the emergence of life from inorganic material, has never been observed. 2) Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments have also confirmed that these boundaries exist. 3) Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. 4) Natural Selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among pre-existing characteristics. 5) Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which genetic material becomes available for evolution. However all (perhaps all) observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal. 6) No know mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors. 7) Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 consecutive human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. 8) There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain. 9) The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common designer. 10) The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has increased, the functions of almost all of these organs have been discovered. 11) As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors (recapitulation theory). Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence of evolution. 12) There are many singe cell forms of life, but there are no forms of life with 2, 3..., or even 20 cells. If organic evolution happened, these forms of life should exist in great abundance. None do. The evolutionary tree has no trunk. 13) Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like man have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was pig's tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The fossil evidence concerning Peking man has disappeared. Ramipethicus consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments. It is now know that these fragments were pieced together incorrectly so as to resemble portions of the human jaw. Detailed computer analyses of the Australopithecines have conclusively shown that they are not intermediate between man and apes. The Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are actually quite distinct from both man and apes. For about 100 years, the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this was based upon some Neanderthal men who were crippled with arthritis and rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human. Artists depictions, especially of the flesh portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are questionable. 14) If the Earth, early in its alleged evolution, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation. 15) There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed atmospheres of the early Earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that required by evolution. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the Earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would have destroyed the protein products millions of time faster than they could be formed. 16) 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 self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between 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. 17) DNA can only be produced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. No evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation. 18) The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527. The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter. 19) There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers and drones. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other members could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. 20) Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the bombadier beetle, and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish. The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal. All evidence points to a designer. According to the theories of Evolution of the Solar System: 21) The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same direction, but Venus and Uranus rotate backwards. 22) All 49 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction, but at least 11 revolve backwards. 23) 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 high inclined. 24) The material of the Earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should almost all be Hydrogen and Helium--similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen or helium. 25) 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. 26) No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space or time. Since each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have completely failed. 27) 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 bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 400 of these published checks, 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?" 28) Direct measurements of the Earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 yrs ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the Earth could not be older than 25,000 years. 29) The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. 30) Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years. 31) The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found--on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young. 32) If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust--possibly 900 ft in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young. 33) Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about 5 feet per hour. Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinking has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a billion years ago. 34) Short period comets boil off some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old. ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Kuan Li Oi To: All Msg #26, Apr-03-93 02:11AM Subject: Re: Evolution battle continues... Organization: The University of Western Australia From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi) Message-ID: <1pjnskINNbm6@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> Newsgroups: talk.origins Nearly all of the arguments raised in this article have been refuted, challenged or thrashed out to the Nth degree quite recently. Most of these arguments are straw man demolition, or are gross misinterpretations of current theory, or delightfully ignore well formulated and supported explainations. Arguments 14-18 deal with abiogenesis and are mainly probability arguments. These have been thrashed over and over again. How can one calculate probabilities when we don't know the precise conditions that existed early on in the history of the earth. Arguments 21 - 33 have been refuted time and time again on t.o. The silliness of the arguments can be demonstrated particularly in argument 29. It is claimed that there is no way that helium can escape the atmosphere. This is totally wrong. Helium has a small enough mass such that even at room temperature, a not so insignificant fraction of molocules have a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the earth. Helium gas is escaping from the earths atmosphere all the time. This is just an example of the misconstruing/contortion (lying?) that creationists resort to in order to inflict a self imposed labotomy. And they expect others to believe them. Enough of my ranting and raving. Daniel Oi University of Western Australia

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank