ps418

A brief discussion of "moon dust," and how the argument has backfired on YECs.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/idp.htm" target="_blank">A Dusty Young-Earth Argument Backfires</a>

Bubba

Lets see about this...

The moon dust arguement dates to an article that was published in 1959 in a science magazine...I forget which one. Both the United States and the Soviet Union sent unmanned probes to the moon, which accurately measured the amount of dust and its rate of accumuation. I was also born in the mid 60's. So the arguement has been used inaccurately for the whole time I've been on the planet and creationists are still actively trying to push it.

...and people like Philip Johnson want to call evolutionary biologists dishonest??

Amazing.

Bubba

Undercurrent

Not quite. From the article:

It seems like the order of events is more like:

• Petterson makes his estimate.
• Real scientists make more measurements and establish a more accurate estimate.
• Moon landing* gets some creationist** thinking.
• Creationist digs up Petterson number because none of the rest help him.
• Creationists start lying.

So it seems like you probably had five to ten good years of life before the creationist nuts started lying.

m.

* Every time I've heard this arguement in a context where the creationist is telling a story rather than spitting out sound bites, they always mention the moon landing and the "stilts" on the lander. This leads me to believe that the story was precipitated by the moon landing and could not have originated before 1969.

** I say "some creationist" rather than "Henry Morris" because these stories pass, anattributed, so quickly through the creationist ranks that it seems unlikely that the first recorded observation was the origination.