Moon Dust?

You're telling of the facts is a bit off.

AIG's Moon Dust Page

Although some scientists had speculated prior to spacecraft landing on the moon that there would be a thick dust layer there, there were many scientists who disagreed and who predicted that the dust would be thin and firm enough for a manned landing. Then in 1966 the Russians with their Luna 9 spacecraft and the Americans with their five successful Surveyor spacecraft accomplished soft-landings on the lunar surface, the footpads of the latter sinking no more than an inch or two into the soft lunar soil and the photographs sent back settling the argument over the thickness of the dust and its strength. Consequently, before the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon in 1969 the moon dust issue had been settled, and their lunar exploration only confirmed the prediction of the majority, plus the meteoritic dust influx measurements that had been made by satellite-borne detector systems which had indicated only a minor amount.

Click to expand...

The data used in this creationist argument was never done to measure the accumulation on the moon, but on earth ( Patterson - 1960).

It has been shown that his measurement and technique was crude and inaccurate.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there were two measurements made, one for a young earth and one for an old earth. Can you explain this part of your story? I don't think this is true. The main differeneces between measurements are the rate of accumulation. All calculations based on these rates are done for an 'old' earth (because after all, it is). There was disagreement in the scientific community about the rate of accumulation, not the age of the earth. It turns out that the more accurate measurements from satelites and such show a much lower rate of accumulation than Pattersons original measurements (again, his method was relatively crude and was NOT done to determine the rate of accumulation on the moon).

NASA did its own studies and came to a different conclusions then Patterson. Patterson's measurements were not used when preparing the NASA missions.

This is an example of one of Henry Morris's and Walt Brown's fabrications. Why repeat it?

Ikester, your entire site is nonsense. That page where you "debunk" the 98.3% similarity between chimps and humans sent me into convulsions.

And I'm in highschool biology.

I hear a lot of talk but no references.

Ark Guy said:

I hear a lot of talk but no references.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, Ikester should give his references because according to the AIG link I referenced, many of his statements are inaccurate related to the moon dust argument.

ikester7579 said:

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog1.2.html

Click to expand...

Talk about distortion.

"These also more coinside with science's conclusion for the age of the earth. Even though the first experiments supported a young earth. Makes you wonder why this was attempted so many times and was abandoned as soon as they got close to the age answers they were looking for. In my opinion, science can't accept truth of their experiments when they support a young earth."

Did it occur to you that after we put satellites in space and men on the moon that we have more accurate ways of measuring dust accumulation? The original way that was done was crude and unreliable. If the measurements had been done anywhere else, they would have been different do to winds, environment, etc.

You are looking for a conspiracy that does not exist. Why would you call into question the honest of the scientists that do this work when you do not know them, have little understanding of their work, and unlike you, they do not have an agenda to deceive through false accusations.

Why won't you accept the conclusions of Snelling? Our methods have improved and the measurement has become more accurate. Why do creationists cling to the MOST inncaccurate measurement available? (hint: because it supports their conclusions). This is not good science (and is slandering some good scientists with your accusations).

As Snelling says:
"Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists' timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists' case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists."

Ikester, your site still suggests that when trying to determine the amount of accumulation of dust on the moon that somehow these experiments were tied to determining how old the moon was or somehow tied to determining if the earth and moon are young.

Do you have a reference for this supposed connection at the time or did you just make that part up? What evidence do you have that shows that the disagreement was not just about the rate of accumulation but somehow was tied to determining the age of the moon?

From you site:
"Some fantastic formula was worked out and everybody got excited. Because this was suposed to determine how old the moon was and leave those in favor of creation red faced."

Do you have a reference to 'everybody getting excited'?

ikester7579 said:

To take a quote from what you wrote"Why don't you accept the writtings of God?". God's methods are perfect and are always accurate. Why do atheist always cling to the most innaccurate measurement available?(hint: because it supports their conclusions). This is not good Godly worship(and is slandering God with your accusations). Pot meet kettle.

Click to expand...

What you just wrote is so totally unrelated to what was actually under discussion that I am forced to conclude you misread the post you were responding to; I would suggest you reread it.

Also, there is an odd quirk here, which is that you ask about what "atheist" do (apparently unaware that the plural is "atheists"), but that you do this in a conversation not involving any atheists.

ikester7579 said:

To take a quote from what you wrote"Why don't you accept the writtings of God?". God's methods are perfect and are always accurate. Why do atheist always cling to the most innaccurate measurement available?(hint: because it supports their conclusions). This is not good Godly worship(and is slandering God with your accusations). Pot meet kettle.

Click to expand...

What atheists are you making reference to? What atheists are clinging to the most innaccurate measurements available for a particular measurement? (such as the creationists who still cling to the original earth dust measurements made on a mountain top in hawaii instead of by satelites in orbit).

So, can I take this response to mean that the introduction to your moon dust article is a complete fabrication (read false witness) and you cannot provide any reference to:

"Some fantastic formula was worked out and everybody got excited. Because this was suposed to determine how old the moon was and leave those in favor of creation red faced."

Ikester, just take your page down, PLEASE!

ikester7579 said:

http://www.yecheadquarters.org/catalog1.2.html

Click to expand...

You can't reference a site you wrote you fool, you have to reference your sources.

ikester7579 said:

My gosh, what's this all about? Take my page down please? What? the whole site? Fat chance. You see my site got advertised before it was finished. A lot of it is still rough draft. To take a page down is to delete. There no save just for one page which is bad. But there is something I could do until it's done. Hmmm. Maybe I will. Maybe. If it works without losing data. Or I could put it's a rough draft not to take it seriously yet. O well I'll figure out something. Besides, you did say Please.

Click to expand...

Take the whole thing down. It's a waste of bandwidth. You have moon dust arguements and Paluxy Tracks arguements. As well, your page about the 2% difference made me cry.

I know more about genetics than you and I'm two and a half decades younger. What does that tell you?

I saw the moon dust when the Apollo space ship landed. It was all over the place. They even made footprints in it.

NOT THE POINT!

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!