From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:34:19 GMT

----------------
There are a lot of things missing in Martin's arguments.  I added some of
them.  They are specified by MP.
----------------

Robert Bourdeau quotes Kevin Martin:

>   1. MOON DUST
>[..]
>However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indi-
>cating a young moon [MP].

MP: if we make the assumption that the dust stays where it is and
what it is.

>    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. [MP] Taking
>the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
>dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand

MP: Let us make the foolish assumption that it stays there.

>   2. MAGNETIC FIELD
>    The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant
>(if  not  decreasing)  rate. [MP] At this rate,  8000  years  ago  the
>earth's  magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star,  a

MP: Let us make the ridiculous assumption that this rate has always
been constant.

>   5. PROBABILITY
>[..]
>happen. The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is
>10, to the 119,000 power. [MP]

MP: If we pull out of thin air the absurd assumption that evolutionists
claim that cells generated by pure chance, we can conclude that they are
wrong.

>    Sir  Fred  Hoyle, British mathematician  and  astronomer [MP], was
>quoted  in  Nature  magazine, November 12, 1981,  as saying  "The
>chance  that  higher life forms might have  emerged in  this  way
>(evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping

MP: who is well known for his crackpot theory that life came to earth
by germs contained in comets' tails

>   6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
>    The  second  law of thermodynamics states [MP] that  although  the
>total  amount  of energy remains constant, the amount  of  usable

MP: something that creationists don't understand.  But let us assume
instead

>can  never again be used. [MP] As usable energy decreases,  decay  in-
>creases.  Herein lies the problem for evolution. If  the  natural
>trend  is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible,  for

MP: Now let us play around with words until we get what we want.

>ment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has
>put forth [MP] four conditions that must be met in order for  complex-
>ity to be generated in an environment.

MP: - that is, he invented without any solid reason -

>   The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier
>[MP] to evolutionary idealism.

MP: on the way from pig-headed ignorance

>   7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
>    Vestigial  organs are supposed organs in the body  which  are
>useless,  left over from evolutionary development. The  following
>arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from  the
>"Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
>
>      1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ
>     does not mean it is useless and left over from previous
>     stages of evolution.
>      2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolution-
>     ists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The
>     functions for all  have now been found.  Some of  these
>     were  the pituitary gland (oversees  skeletal  growth),
>     the  thymus  (an  endocrine gland),  the  pineal  gland
>     (affects  the development of the sex glands), the  ton-
>     sils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)
>      3.  The fact that an organ must sometimes  be  removed
>     does not make it vestigial.
>      4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appen-
>     dix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can  sur-
>     vive without an arm or a kidney but these are not  con-
>     sidered vestigial.
>      5.  Organs are not vestigial based upon your  need  or
>     use of them.
>      6.  According to evolution, if an organ has  lost  its
>     value,  it should, over time, vanish completely.  There
>     has been enough time to lose these "vestigial"  organs,
>     but we still have them.
>      7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the
>     second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative proc-
>     ess, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs
>     for new purposes.
>      8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary  pro-
>     gression. Evolution theory requires new organs  forming
>     for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.
>      9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the
>     argument over vestigial organs.

Or, in other words:
Evolutionists claim that there are vestigial organs.  But:
  1. Vestigial organs are not vestigial.
  2. Vestigial organs are not vestigial.
  3. Vestigial organs are not vestigial.
  4. Vestigial organs are not vestigial.
  5. Vestigial organs are not vestigial.
  6. Evolutionists should rather claim that unnecessary organs
     disappear completely instead of becoming vestigial.
  7. But one of the many creationist versions of the second law
     of thermo says that they can *not* disappear but evolve
     in non-vestigial organs (what they are, according to 1-5).
     So THIS must be how these organs evolved - oops, ignore that
     last word.
  8. Evolutionists really should not claim there are vestigial organs.
  9. Say what: they don't claim it at all.  Boy, are they lucky!

>   8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
>oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried  rapidly
>in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of
>fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to  indi-
>cate [MP] a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you  guessed  it,
>Noah's flood.

MP: a real lot of tiny catastrophes.  But if we ignore the dating of the
fossils it could as well be

>   13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>    The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet  per
>hour. [MP] At  this rate, life could not have existed  on  the  earth

MP: Let us fall back on ridiculous assumptions and assume that it has
always been shrinking at this rate.

>
>   14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
>    Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of  Nile's
>flooding  each  year leads to the conclusion [MP] of  an  earth  under
>30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal  overflows

MP: that bumblebees are made of osmium, and that leads to the conclusion
[tsk, tsk, just omitting the line of reasoning]

>   15. EARTH'S ROTATION
>    The spin rate of the earth is slowing one second per year. If
>the  earth were the billions of years old that the  evolutionists
>say it is [MP], the centrifugal force would have notably deformed  the
>earth.

MP: and if our usual ridiculous assumption that it has always been this
way were true


-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins