Moon dust

[Abiyoyo]

Who is scientifically correct about the age of earth by the amount of dust on the moon. I have provided links to some research, and debate sites. Scientists for the "creationists", and "evolutionists" both have proof of there different veiws! Who are the real scientists? Which scientists would be considered least creditable?

 

Link for evolutionists:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

 

Links for creationists:

 

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html

[Asimov]

Who is scientifically correct about the amount of dust on the moon. I have provided links to a few research, and debate sites. Scientists for the "creationists", and scientists from "evolutionists" both have proof! Whos the real scientist? Which scientists are least creditable?

 

Link for evolutionists:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

 

Links for creationists:

 

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html

 

Well, you can look up the original research, then find out for yourself.

[Thurisaz]

Snelling, uh?

 

From the talk.origins site:

 

There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:

 

    "It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

 

This pattern appears again and again. Cretinist makes claim, scientist refutes claim, cretinist... just repeats claim some days or weeks later, never addressing the refutation. In some very very few cases, cretinist feels so embarrassed that he actually admits to have been wrong, but that doesn't stop other cretinists from quoting his "perfect proof against Evilution™" a zillion times a day until Ragnarök.

 

There is no truth in babblical cretinism. Period.

 

Any more questions?

[Abiyoyo]

Well, you can look up the original research, then find out for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you have any direction for this. Links, sites, etc.. Library LOL

[Abiyoyo]

Snelling, uh?

 

From the talk.origins site:

This pattern appears again and again. Cretinist makes claim, scientist refutes claim, cretinist... just repeats claim some days or weeks later, never addressing the refutation. In some very very few cases, cretinist feels so embarrassed that he actually admits to have been wrong, but that doesn't stop other cretinists from quoting his "perfect proof against Evilution" a zillion times a day until Ragnarök.

 

There is no truth in babblical cretinism. Period.

 

Any more questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I read this part as well, but the creationists say seem to stand firm on the evidence they have come to and the unknown.

 

This is indeed a powerful argument, so powerful that it has upset the evolutionist camp. Consequently, a number of concerted efforts have been recently made to refute this evidence.3-9 After all, in order to be a credible theory, evolution needs plenty of time (that is, billions of years) to occur because the postulated process of transforming one species into another certainly can't be observed in the lifetime of a single observer. So no evolutionist could ever be happy with evidence that the earth and the solar system are less than 10,000 years old.

 

But do evolutionists have any valid criticisms of this argument? And if so, can they be answered? Criticisms of this argument made by evolutionists fall into three categories:-

(1) The question of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the earth and moon,

(2) The question as to whether NASA really expected to find a thick dust layer on the moon when their astronauts landed, and

(3) The question as to what period of lime is represented by the actual layer of dust found on the moon.

[Thurisaz]

I read this part as well, but the creationists say seem to stand firm on the evidence they have come to and the unknown.

 

Yeah, so firm that they keep standing on if after it has been utterly destroyed about once per day for a decade.

[MrSpooky]

I would totally love to go to the peer-reviewed sources, myself. Sadly, creationists don't really do peer-reviewed work. =3

 

Good for you, though, YoYo. Don't trust what people SAY, trust what the EVIDENCE SHOWS. Sometimes you gotta "have faith" in scientific authorities, but ONLY BECAUSE you recognize that the scientists are authorities BECAUSE they can provide evidence. They are NOT sources of evidence because they are authorities.

[MrSpooky]

(1) The question of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the earth and moon,

 

A perfectly valid criticism. If the evidence shows that the moon is old, even with a thin layer of dust, the one must believe that the moon is old. As well as the contrary notion.

 

However, in my experience, peer-review is much more reliable than non peer-review, expecially when you gather the rest of the body of information on the subject to analyze the problem from multiple vectors. I would still like to look up the data though.

 

 

 

(2) The question as to whether NASA really expected to find a thick dust layer on the moon when their astronauts landed,

 

The guy writing this makes a huge mistake. Did NASA expect a thick dust layer? I don't know, but the statement seems to be along the lines of "Well, NASA expected a thick dust layer, and those smartypants were wrong!"

 

So what?

 

Scientists will make mistakes, and we correct them when we find out we're wrong. If our predictions are wrong, we look back on our method and see if we screwed up, and apparently the Creationist making the claim DID SCREW UP.

 

Again, I have no idea whether NASA believe in a deep layer or not, but the point is moot in any case.

 

 

 

(3) The question as to what period of lime is represented by the actual layer of dust found on the moon.

 

I have no idea what this means. Was the guy referring to "time?" or the stone "lime?" I honestly don't know how to address this one.

[white_raven23]

Okay, you can't apply earth gravity logic to any spacial body that doesn't have the same gravity.

 

Dust is not going to behave on the moon the same way it does on earth. Not to mention you have to be able to define "dust" on the moon to begin with.

 

Also, the shedding of organic life is the main cause of dust on earth. It's skin particles.

 

No organic life on the moon. Where's the mass of dust going to come from?

[I Broke Free]

When it turned out that the layer of moon dust was less than expected, based on the age of the moon, there were only two possible reasons.

 

1) The age of the moon was much less than expected

 

2) The theory on the rate of moon dust creation was in error.

 

Science immediately had to reject the possibility of #1 because of the mountains of confirming data that show the age of the moon to be the same as the Earth, between four and five billion years.

 

Creationists immediately “selected” #1 because it confirmed their pre-conclusion regarding the age of the moon. (From what I have read though, the amount of dust on the moon using the now discredited theory would still indicate a much older age than 6000 years!)

 

It was a scientist back in the 1960’s that came up with the theory. I don’t believe the theory is mentioned in the Bible. Why have creationist given this “scientific” theory the same infallibility as scripture?

[Mr. Neil]

Creationists immediately “selected” #1 because it confirmed their pre-conclusion regarding the age of the moon. (From what I have read though, the amount of dust on the moon using the now discredited theory would still indicate a much older age than 6000 years!)

Isn't the moon dust argument one of those arguments that Answers In Genesis advises creationists not to use?

[TruthWarrior]

Isn't the moon dust argument one of those arguments that Answers In Genesis advises creationists not to use?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:

‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).

[Mr. Neil]

They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer.

I'd like to ask the person who wrote this sentence the following question. Why would evolutionary biologists be making claims about the thickness of dust on the moon?

[crazy-tiger]

They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer.

I'd like to ask the person who wrote this sentence the following question. Why would evolutionary biologists be making claims about the thickness of dust on the moon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shhh...

 

You know they've got to show that evolutionists are wrong all the time.

[Mr. Neil]

I see. If there are any wrong claims in any field of science, evolution automatically gets the blame. I see how that works.

[Asimov]

I see.  If there are any wrong claims in any field of science, evolution automatically gets the blame.  I see how that works.

 

 

Yesterday I dropped my pen, and was about to blame Newton for discovering gravity, when I thought "evolutionists use gravity to fuel their pagan religion of Darwinism" then I blamed the evolutionists and cursed their names!!