Freethought & Rationalism Archive

flurpy2 · 05-15-2003, 11:26 AM

Came upon a site with "proof" that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

One point they are making is that the moon accumulates about half an inch of dust in 1000 years.

Moon dust is only a few inches deep, implying that the moon cannot be much more than 10 000 years old.

Any scientists out there that can explain / refute this?

Godless Dave · 05-15-2003, 11:43 AM

The surface soil is only a few inches deep, but below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

more

ps418 · 05-15-2003, 11:53 AM

Easily refuted. In fact, it was refuted decisively decades ago, but unfortunately it takes a few centuries for the word to filter down to YEC websites. In fact, the real data on dust accretion overwhelmingly supports an old age for the earth! Check out my article:

A dusty YEC argument backfires

Patrick

Jet Grind · 05-15-2003, 12:07 PM

This is from Creationism.com

Quote:

The influx of meteoritic dust from space to Earth is about 14 million tons per year. If the Earth and Moon were 4.5 billion years old, then there should be a layer of dust 50 to 100 feet thick covering their surfaces.

Tim Berra writes:

This estimate of dust influx is simply out of date. Space probes have found that the level of dust influx from space is about 400 times less than that. Creationists are aware of the modern measurements, but they continue to use the incorrect figure because it suits their purpose. Such is their honesty and scholarship. Do these people believe that the astronauts would have been allowed to land on the Moon if NASA thought they would sink into 100 feet of dust?

flurpy2 · 05-15-2003, 12:50 PM

Thanks a million for the reply.
I'm mostly impressed with the overkill you made to the argument.

They New Earthers also had quite an amusing one, but that one I was able to handle:

There exist sheep. Sounds silly? Not so. If the earth was millions of years old, and animal was created before man, how would sheep survive? A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter. Man was created at the same time to guard the sheep and kill the wolves.

Mecha_Dude · 05-15-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flurpy2
There exist sheep. Sounds silly? Not so. If the earth was millions of years old, and animal was created before man, how would sheep survive? A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter. Man was created at the same time to guard the sheep and kill the wolves.

...

There are times when it's hard to imagine yourself sharing the same species with these people...

Tim Thompson · 05-15-2003, 02:21 PM

I didn't realize Patrick had a refutation of the "dust" argument. For another take on refutation, here's mine: Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth, from the fabled Talk.Origins Archive.

To start with, the creationist argument is based on a paper published back in the 1950's by the first guy who ever tried to actually measure the extraterrestrial dust fall rate (Hans Pettersson), using equipment not designed for that purpose. He used measurements of Nickel in the atmosphere as a surrogate for extraterrestrial dust, and so overestimated the amount by not realikzing how much Nickel was just terrestrial air pollution. Nevertheless, his given range of dustfall rates was not all that bad. But Arch-Creationist Henry Morris took the number that Petturson gave as the absolute extreme possible value, and deceptively quoted it as "the value" given by Petturson.

All I did was to look at published estimates of dustfall rate on the Earth, from observations of meteorites, stratospheric dust, and the Long Duration Exposure Faciility, and listed them. It's pretty easy to convert from influx rate to a surface thickness, and it doesn't amount to much (about 66 cm over 4.5 billion years).

Looks like Patrick & I used pretty similar sources, especially the LDEF, which gives the most reliable direct measure.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 05-15-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by flurpy2

There exist sheep. Sounds silly? Not so. If the earth was millions of years old, and animal was created before man, how would sheep survive? A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter. Man was created at the same time to guard the sheep and kill the wolves.

Sheep weren't always domesticated ya know. Ever seen the predator/prey relationships in savannas?

Godless Dave · 05-16-2003, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Thompson
I didn't realize Patrick had a refutation of the "dust" argument. For another take on refutation, here's mine: Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth, from the fabled Talk.Origins Archive.

Which I quoted above without citing properly. Sorry.

Treacle Worshipper · 05-16-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by flurpy2
A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter.

Someone needs to tell them that sheep regularly have 2 or even 3 lambs at a time...

TW

05-15-2003, 11:26 AM	#1
flurpy2 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: south africa Posts: 20	New earth and moon dust Came upon a site with "proof" that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. One point they are making is that the moon accumulates about half an inch of dust in 1000 years. Moon dust is only a few inches deep, implying that the moon cannot be much more than 10 000 years old. Any scientists out there that can explain / refute this?

05-15-2003, 12:50 PM	#5
flurpy2 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: south africa Posts: 20	Thanks for info Thanks a million for the reply. I'm mostly impressed with the overkill you made to the argument. They New Earthers also had quite an amusing one, but that one I was able to handle: There exist sheep. Sounds silly? Not so. If the earth was millions of years old, and animal was created before man, how would sheep survive? A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter. Man was created at the same time to guard the sheep and kill the wolves.

05-16-2003, 08:47 AM	#10
Treacle Worshipper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 931	Re: Thanks for info Originally posted by flurpy2 A sheep has one lamb a year, while a wolf has an entire litter. Someone needs to tell them that sheep regularly have 2 or even 3 lambs at a time... TW

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2003, 11:43 AM	#2
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	The surface soil is only a few inches deep, but below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands. more

05-15-2003, 11:53 AM	#3
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Easily refuted. In fact, it was refuted decisively decades ago, but unfortunately it takes a few centuries for the word to filter down to YEC websites. In fact, the real data on dust accretion overwhelmingly supports an old age for the earth! Check out my article: A dusty YEC argument backfires Patrick

05-15-2003, 02:21 PM	#7
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	I didn't realize Patrick had a refutation of the "dust" argument. For another take on refutation, here's mine: Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth, from the fabled Talk.Origins Archive. To start with, the creationist argument is based on a paper published back in the 1950's by the first guy who ever tried to actually measure the extraterrestrial dust fall rate (Hans Pettersson), using equipment not designed for that purpose. He used measurements of Nickel in the atmosphere as a surrogate for extraterrestrial dust, and so overestimated the amount by not realikzing how much Nickel was just terrestrial air pollution. Nevertheless, his given range of dustfall rates was not all that bad. But Arch-Creationist Henry Morris took the number that Petturson gave as the absolute extreme possible value, and deceptively quoted it as "the value" given by Petturson. All I did was to look at published estimates of dustfall rate on the Earth, from observations of meteorites, stratospheric dust, and the Long Duration Exposure Faciility, and listed them. It's pretty easy to convert from influx rate to a surface thickness, and it doesn't amount to much (about 66 cm over 4.5 billion years). Looks like Patrick & I used pretty similar sources, especially the LDEF, which gives the most reliable direct measure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.