notMichaelJackson

A creationist once told me that if the moon was several billion years old, it would have much more celestial dust covering the surface than is actually there. Since there are only a few inches of dust there, the moon must only be a few thousand years old.

What is the appropriate refutation of this argument?

Rhaedas

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

The first measurements and estimates were off. Even creationism sites admit this is not a valid argument.

Worldtraveller

Edited because I was 13 minutes slower...

Cheers,
Lane

ps418

The appropriate refutation of the argument is that using the very same logic but with the correct empirical estimates of dust influx rates, the moon is billions of years old and YEC is false. In fact, IDP accumulation provides fantastic evidence for an old moon and earth. I have an article on this:

A dusty YEC argument backfires

Patrick

notMichaelJackson

Of course! Creationists use bogus measurements of how much "extraterrestrial dust" there is on the earth. It's so obvious now.

Thanks.