Moon Dust.
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#1 Apr 2, 2010
Since evolution has no actual evidence, just invoke the billions and billions of years clause. Who is to say what did or did not happen billions and billions of years ago. It's not like anyone kept a journal billions of years ago. You can claim anything you want.

--

First Moon Landing (1969).

By the 1950s, scientists were able to predict that, if the moon was billions of years old, it would have a thick layer of dust many miles thick. This is due to the fact, as R.A. Lyttleton explained, the lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays from the sun gradually destroying the surface layers of exposed rock, reducing them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year.

In 5 to 10 billion years, this would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust
(R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175).

Because of this, NASA first sent an unmanned lander, which made the discovery that there is very little dust on the moon’s surface. In spite of that, Neil Armstrong feared that he and Edwin Aldrin might suffocate when they landed. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. Landing on July 20, 1969, they found an average of 3/4 inches [1.91cm] of dust on its surface. That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000- 8000 years old (at a rate of 1 inch every 10,000 years).

In Isaac Asimov’s first published article (1958), he predicted that the first rocket to land on the moon would sink ingloriously in the dust, and everyone inside would perish
Article mentioned in Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective, 1989, pp. xvi-xvii

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Apr 2, 2010
JRS wrote:
First Moon Landing (1969).
By the 1950s, scientists were able to predict that, if the moon was billions of years old, it would have a thick layer of dust many miles thick.....blah, blah, blah......
Dumbass.

Even ANSWERS IN GENESIS says this argument is full of crap (my words).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/...

(Moon-dust argument no longer usefulFirst published:
Creation 15(4):22
September 1993)

"For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction.

For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2

The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, as we have indicated before, creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3 Apr 2, 2010
And here's what REAL scientists have to say about "moon dust":

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.h...

1.The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#4 Apr 2, 2010
Any minute now JRS will post the NASA linky which states their position that they do indeed think that the moon is young...

(Dude waits... and waits)

Any minute now...
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#5 Apr 2, 2010
Hey JRS, since you disagree with YEC's, why are you posting this in the first place? Where's the consistency in your arguments? Or is the blatant dishonesty and propaganda on your part simply a means to an end?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#6 Apr 2, 2010
The Dude wrote:
Hey JRS, since you disagree with YEC's, why are you posting this in the first place? Where's the consistency in your arguments? Or is the blatant dishonesty and propaganda on your part simply a means to an end?
JRs doesn't know YEC from Shinola. He probably thought YEC was some kind of system for dating fossils.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#7 Apr 2, 2010
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
JRs doesn't know YEC from Shinola. He probably thought YEC was some kind of system for dating fossils.
But I did explain it to him. And he apparently disagrees with both their positions. Hasn't stopped him from using them as sources of creationist info though, which means every single post he makes and every single thread he creates MUST involve dishonesty on his part. More so even than your average creationist, who usually have *some* kind of internal consistency. JRS however has none.

Other than "evilushun iz rong cuz GODDIDIT!" of course.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 Apr 2, 2010
ROFLMAO!!!

The Moon Dust argument!!!

Oh, that's rich. That's hilarious.

Some idiot in the '50's makes a screwball error on an estimate of meteoric dust fall...and the creationists glom onto it like it was a life preserver.

Hey, Junior. Try doing a little actual research and math. Find out what the actual rate of dust fall is on the Moon, and how long it would take to accumulate the level we see.

Hehe...moon dust...<chortle>
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#9 Apr 2, 2010
Well, if nothing else, JRS is consistent.

He's pretty much gone through EVERY old, tired an debunked "argument" that "creationists" have used in the past 100 years or so.

Of course, he doesn't realize that his puking up failed "creationist" arguments are no more scientifically convincing than they were the first hundred thousand times they were used.

Not that he has much choice, really, since he doesn't have any "creation science" evidence to dazzle people with.
edoardo roncelli

Gemona Del Friuli, Italy

#10 Dec 11, 2013
I think that the exaggeration about Moon's dust was dictated by the urgency to destroy Creationist's valid point of view.
edoardo roncelli

Gemona Del Friuli, Italy

#11 Dec 11, 2013
...then they realized that Moon's dust was not in line with Evolutionism and simply changed the theory explaining it. Period.

Science is not democracy but the reign of the competitive struggle.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#12 Dec 11, 2013
We do not need to destroy the creationist's position, their own premise does that. Their claim is that reality ain't real cuz Jews are magic. Since that's about as far from science as you can get, they have no case. Never have.
edoardo roncelli wrote:
...then they realized that Moon's dust was not in line with Evolutionism and simply changed the theory explaining it. Period.
Wrong. The moon dust argument is creationist's attempt to undercut evolution by ignoring the evidence for evolution and addressing the age of the universe instead. Therefore they are not actually debunking evolution, and in fact are not only rejecting biology, but also physics and chemistry by claiming the universe is merely thousands of years old, despite all evidence to the contrary. So in short they are rejecting ALL science.

And the irony is that they are claiming evolution can't happen if the universe is that young, but evolution DEFINITELY did happen right after Noah ditched his boat. And super-fast too, in a ridiculously short amount of time.

They can't say their argument applies to evolution but not apply to them.
edoardo roncelli wrote:
Science is not democracy but the reign of the competitive struggle.
Tell it to the fundie rubes whining about "Teach the controversy!" (shrug)
DarwinPaul

Dallas, TX

#13 Dec 11, 2013
So where is the moon dust? lol I remember reading that they almost could plant the flag. They had to tilt it so it was balanced. If there was dust, well.
This is an explanation that I want to see. These tards are just too dumb. tee heeeee

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#14 Dec 11, 2013
DarwinPaul wrote:
So where is the moon dust? lol I remember reading that they almost could plant the flag. They had to tilt it so it was balanced. If there was dust, well.
This is an explanation that I want to see. These tards are just too dumb. tee heeeee
There is dust on the Moon.

The first person that made an estimate was off by a mile. And yet creatards still try to use that figure.
DarwinPaul

Dallas, TX

#15 Dec 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is dust on the Moon.
The first person that made an estimate was off by a mile. And yet creatards still try to use that figure.
That's no answer you Tard. lol Once again the EvoTards lose.

Like a month ago all the different varieties of early homo disappeared and now with Devinsion(sp) all over the place even OOA Eve isn't the mother of all people. Oh lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#16 Dec 11, 2013
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
That's no answer you Tard. lol Once again the EvoTards lose.
Like a month ago all the different varieties of early homo disappeared and now with Devinsion(sp) all over the place even OOA Eve isn't the mother of all people. Oh lol
Sure it was you idiot. And by the way terms like "tard" are reserved for the true morons in this debate; creationists.

The different species of Homo have not disappeared. You are putting too much weight on one article that you did not understand.

We all know that you are an idiot and we would love to help you learn. The first thing you have to do is to admit that you are an idiot.
DarwinPaul

Dallas, TX

#17 Dec 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it was you idiot. And by the way terms like "tard" are reserved for the true morons in this debate; creationists.
The different species of Homo have not disappeared. You are putting too much weight on one article that you did not understand.
We all know that you are an idiot and we would love to help you learn. The first thing you have to do is to admit that you are an idiot.
You are an exemplary evoTard. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Dec 11, 2013
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an exemplary evoTard. lol
Sorry but there is not such thing as an "evoTard". Mentally challenged people tend to believe in creationism.

Moron.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 Dec 12, 2013
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
That's no answer you Tard. lol Once again the EvoTards lose.
Hardly. You ignore the fact your arguments and position are fatally flawed.

That's WHY the entire scientific community supports OUR position and not yours.

All you got is "You'll be sorry when you're DEAD!"

And you call US psychos.(shrug)
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>Like a month ago all the different varieties of early homo disappeared and now with Devinsion(sp) all over the place even OOA Eve isn't the mother of all people. Oh lol
Just because she exists doesn't mean she didn't have ancestors that existed before her. Science is obviously not your forte so why pretend otherwise? Answer - you were raised by dumb people.
DarwinPaul

Houston, TX

#20 Dec 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. You ignore the fact your arguments and position are fatally flawed.
That's WHY the entire scientific community supports OUR position and not yours.
All you got is "You'll be sorry when you're DEAD!"
And you call US psychos.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Just because she exists doesn't mean she didn't have ancestors that existed before her. Science is obviously not your forte so why pretend otherwise? Answer - you were raised by dumb people.
You're too stupid to post when drinking. Please sober up, tard.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Frindly 83,830
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Frindly 3,226
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 164,923
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 10 hr MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 hr Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web