The Potential Danger of Literalism

[TwinCrier]

Doesn't Psalms say that the Earth and Heavens speak to us of God?

I totally agree.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth . . . Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be, he commanded, and it stood firm. Psalms 33:6-9

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them . . . Exodus 20:11

Of couse if you gasp "Xillions of years" at every piece of evidence you've already drawn your conclusion.

 

[Vance]

No, developed conclusions based on the evidence. Do you believe thunder and the rainbow have natural causes, or do you believe they are just immediate acts of God?

 

[TwinCrier]

No, developed conclusions based on the evidence. Do you believe thunder and the rainbow have natural causes, or do you believe they are just immediate acts of God?

A little of the first, a lot of the second.

 

[Vance]

So, when thunder sounds, or you see a rainbow, you think God is specifically directing that very action, or that God created the natural processes to allow that to take place?

If the former, what about the tsunami? A natural process God created or a specific event God directed?

 

[California Tim]

What I am saying is that this is the claim which YECism forces. YECism cannot accept that God is speaking truth in the works of his hands.

I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion. That is unless you are referring to the "truth" as science declares it. In that case I'd happily concede that I do not feel God is speaking the "world's view of truth" in His creation. Very few, if any YEC'ist feel that creation is misleading or contradictory of the reality of a young creation. It is secular science that promotes the idea that radiometric dating and geologic columns are inerrant and indisputable proof of age. It is that standard that puts the historical nature of the Genesis account to task. We all interpret the same evidence as TE'ists do, yet come up with different conclusions. It's that simple.

 

[Vance]

Well, unfortunately, most YEC's start with the presumption that if there is a seeming conflict between the interpretation of God's Creation and a particular interpretation of Scripture, then the fault will most likely lie with the interpretation of Creation. Some even go so far as to say their interpretation of Scripture MUST be right, so ANY evidence from God's Creation which contradicts that interpretation MUST be false data. This, of course, is an approach that is very ulikely to lead to the truth.

Some even recognize that all the evidence we have from God's Creation does, indeed, SEEM very strongly to speak of an old earth and even of evolution, but place so little value on God's ability to properly communicate to us via His natural creation that they have no trust in that empirical evidence compared up against their literal interpretation. In short, they don't trust their own interpretation of the Book of God's Creation as much as their interpretation of the Book of God's Scripture.

To me, this makes little sense. If God can speak to use through His Creation, it should be able to be "read" correctly WITHOUT a presumption of a particular interpretation of Scripture. Proper interpretation of either of the two "books" should independently arrive at the same conclusions as the other. To say otherwise is to say that God can not effectively speak to us through His Creation. But every YEC conclusion about God's Creation is based on their interpretation of Scripture. Without a preexisting conclusion that the earth MUST be young, no scientist would ever come to the conclusion that the earth is young based solely on the evidence from God's Creation. This is just a simple fact.

 

[gluadys]

I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion. That is unless you are referring to the "truth" as science declares it. In that case I'd happily concede that I do not feel God is speaking the "world's view of truth" in His creation. Very few, if any YEC'ist feel that creation is misleading or contradictory of the reality of a young creation. It is secular science that promotes the idea that radiometric dating and geologic columns are inerrant and indisputable proof of age. It is that standard that puts the historical nature of the Genesis account to task. We all interpret the same evidence as TE'ists do, yet come up with different conclusions. It's that simple.

No unbiased study of geology concludes that a young creation is real. Remember the 18th-19th century study of the geologic column was undertaken primarily by Christians. Christians who were (in that pre-evolutionary time) creationists whose bias was toward a young earth. It was these Christian geologists, assuming that a young earth and a global flood were indeed real, who discovered that neither conclusion was borne out by the evidence their own hands were uncovering. It was these Christian geologists who came to the conclusion the earth was at the very least a few hundred million years old and no global flood had occurred, while Darwin was still an unknown student of theology.

That is an historical fact that YECists ignore. And cannot explain.

We do not all interpret the same evidence. In order to come to a conclusion the earth is young YECists must ignore a great deal of evidence. It's that simple.

 

[California Tim]

No unbiased study of geology concludes that a young creation is real.

A presumption you cannot substantiate. To boldly declare that NO PERSON is capable of concluding otherwise is to presume any conclusion contrary to the popular conclusions of current science is invalid before any argument is presented. It is this very bias IMO that prevents a proper evaluation of the evidence by pro-evolution and old-earth advocates. You dismiss beforehand the possibility of valid contrary conclusions.

It was these Christian geologists who came to the conclusion the earth was at the very least a few hundred million years old and no global flood had occurred, while Darwin was still an unknown student of theology.

That is an historical fact that YECists ignore. And cannot explain.

How about this novel idea: They were wrong. Sincere but wrong. I see you and other TE'ists gleefully argue the validity of early Christian origins dogma with the ever-popular geocentric/flat-earth nonsense. Does this standard not apply now because it supports your argument? People make mistakes. That's your answer.

We do not all interpret the same evidence. In order to come to a conclusion the earth is young YECists must ignore a great deal of evidence. It's that simple.

The only thing dismissed is the time-table used to interpret the evidence. You see strata as proof of millions of years of age. I see strata as proof of a global flood. You see craters on the moon as proof of old age, I see current accumulation of moon dust as proof of a young age and craters formed on top of this young thinly dust veiled crust as proof of more recent impacts. I do not ignore evidence, nor do many YEC'ists. I do, OTOH see many shrugs from the TE'ists about the enormous gaps between species in the fossil records with only a very - very tiny "purported" exception.

 

[Vance]

But the point, Tim, is that NONE of that evidence holds up under scrutiny, which is why NONE of it is believed by anyone other than those who feel they MUST believe it due to their particular interpretation if Scripture. Even those scientists who refuse to accept the theory of evolution (Behe, Johnson, Denton, etc) all realize that all that evidence is just simply wrong. We have asked in the other forum many times for a single scientist in the relevant fields who accepts YEC scientific concepts who did not start from the position that the YEC position MUST be true. None have been presented.

You say that the experiment can't be done to prove that no scientist would arrive at a young earth conclusion based on an objective review of the evidence, and I agree this is true since all scientists come in with prior knowledge and some bias. But, a very close experiment already exists. That is the fact that almost all of the scientists who would even have a bias in FAVOR of a young earth end up rejecting that conclusion.

As an historian by training, I can attest that there is a method by which we seek to determine the probable historicity of a document or of a particular text within a document. There are many factors, and one of them is to look at the bias and agenda of the writer. If the writer presents something that would be contrary to his bias or agenda, then this is a good indicator that the statement in the text may be true.

As an attorney by profession, I can tell you that one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is "statements against interest". A statement made against one's own interest is held to have such high credibility that it is allowed in court even if it is hearsay.

Similarly, Christian scientists in the United States in the relevant fields of study (biology, genetics, geology, etc) would tend to have a bias in favor of the literal reading of Scripture (more so than the rest of the world, at least). So, to the extent they reach a different conclusion, it carries some credibility.

So, this provides an experiment not too far different than what Gluadys presents. The only more convincing than an unbiased person coming to a conclusion is a person who comes to a conclusion CONTRARY to their bias.

 

[California Tim]

We have asked in the other forum many times for a single scientist in the relevant fields who accepts YEC scientific concepts who did not start from the position that the YEC position MUST be true. None have been presented.

.... So, this provides an experiment not too far different than what Gluadys presents. The only more convincing than an unbiased person coming to a conclusion is a person who comes to a conclusion CONTRARY to their bias.

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.)
http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Achievements

A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists. In fact, some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists. This page contains a small sampling of scientists who are recognized by their secular peers and others as being among the very best in their fields, or who have outstanding academic achievements. As time permits, more names will be added. Remember these scientists the next time an evolutionist tries to claim that no serious scientists are young earth creationists!
Also see: Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists
Religious/Scientific Bigotry in the Public Schools and Scientific Careers


Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp.



Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.


Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.


Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."​

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.
http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton​

When a reputable science journalist (and secular evolutionist himself) raises serious doubts about Evolution, then it is time to listen! On subject after subject (fossils, biology, geology, etc.), Richard Milton finally reveals evolutionists' dirty little secret. There is still NO real evidence for Evolution, and the popular dating methods are "scientifically unreliable and seriously flawed."
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering.html


Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.


Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”


Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.


Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)


Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.


Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

Will this list do for starters?

 

[Vance]

But only one of those is described as a "young earth" creationist, which is the point I was making. Being an anti-evolutionist does not mean the person believes in a young earth. And Gentry (the only one mentioned as agreeing with a "young earth"), IIRC, was not very reliable. I will have to check that one out.

Further, you can be sure that that site (similar to the AiG list) went out of their way to find each and every possible anti-evolutionary scientist, and still that is all they could come up with. In the U.S. alone, there are 480,000 scientists in the relevent fields. Even if we assume that only 1% of them are "real", Bible-believing Christians (and I think that is a huge underestimate), then that is 4,800 true Christian scientists in the relevant fields. Now, IIRC, AiG has 70 on their list. Even though many are not in the relevant fields, let's just use that number. That is 0.014% of the CHRISTIAN scientists who are "Creationist". And even many of them would not be "young earth" creationists.

So, even if we restrict our "experiment" to those scientists who, if they HAD a bias, would have one in favor of a literal reading (being here in the U.S. where, within the last 50 years, a literal reading is predominant), we see that more than 99% reject a young earth.

So, while I do not think numbers are conclusive proof of anything, they DO give an important perspective and, if nothing else, show that Gluadys' statement is pretty close to the truth.

 

[California Tim]

But only one of those is described as a "young earth" creationist, which is the point I was making.

LoL. You know, you're a hard one to please. Even harder to get a concession out of. Rather than refute your claim name by name , I'm going to fall back on what you REALLY stated:

We have asked in the other forum many times for a single scientist in the relevant fields who accepts YEC scientific concepts who did not start from the position that the YEC position MUST be true. None have been presented.

By your own admission above:

But only one of those is described as a "young earth" creationist,

I can now confidently declare: THAT SETTLES THAT.

Further, you can be sure that that site (similar to the AiG list) went out of their way to find each and every possible anti-evolutionary scientist, and still that is all they could come up with. In the U.S. alone, there are 480,000 scientists in the relevent fields.

Who said anything about a comprehensive list? Did you notice that no two were in the exact same field of science? Was that just some coincidence or could it be a representation from a broad spectrum of related fields that many in each field DO believe in YEC? Sheesh.

....we see that more than 99% reject a young earth

Pardon my insolence.... but who cares. We have already established that the numbers are skewed by human nature. MOST scientists would likely be agnostic at best. Of the professed "Christians" many will not be strong diests let alone true believers - further skewing the numbers in favor of old-earth, evolution and a figurative Genesis. It's about as meaningful a statement as telling me 500 grossly overweight individuals overwhelmingly reject exercise as a means to personal happiness.

 

[herev]

We all interpret the same evidence as TE'ists do, yet come up with different conclusions. It's that simple.

I agree, and we all interpret the same scriptures from the same God and come up with different interpretations, it's that simple. Agreed?

 

[Vance]

Oh, I will definitely concede that you indeed came up with exactly one YEC!

But the fact that they came from a variety of fields of study counts against the list, not for it, since not all fields require an equal knowledge of the relevent data.

Also, I think you have a grossly distorted view of scientists. I know a good number of Christian scientists, and they would take strong exception to your opinion of them in general. I was being incredibly generous with the choice of only 1% of scientists in teh relevent fields being true, Bible-believing Christian. Do you really, honestly doubt that AT LEAST this many scientists qualify as truly Christian? Yes, I would say that most scientists ARE at least agnostic. But, even if you feel that many who call themselves Christian are not "true" Christians, you can at least accept that 1% would be true Christians, no?

And, yes, 99% would definitely be a relevant and important statistic. If that high of a percentage of "true" Bible-believing Christians rejected YEC'ism, it would indeed be showing how far out of whack YEC'ism was with the reality of the evidence. While numbers do not make as much of a difference (or any difference, really) when it comes to theological issues, they carry much more weight when it comes to an analysis of scientific evidence.

 

[Vance]

OK, I knew that name rang a bell. Gentry was the one who came up with the "palonium halos" idea, which was such bad science that it makes one wonder if he really could have been such a leader in his field that AiG would like to make him out to be.

 

[California Tim]

OK, I knew that name rang a bell. Gentry was the one who came up with the "palonium halos" idea, which was such bad science that it makes one wonder if he really could have been such a leader in his field that AiG would like to make him out to be.

Well you're the one who assumed only ONE of the people listed was a YEC'ist, not me. For your benefit, I will post some excerpts from another one of those listed here (note: make sure you don't miss the last excerpt posted here):



Creation in the physics lab
An illuminating interview with physicist Dr D. Russell Humphreys


Your model of rapid fluctuations and reversals during the Genesis Flood is now becoming much more widely accepted in creationist circles. There was another prediction that came out of that, wasn’t there?

Yes. Basically when I did the first study and published it in 1986 at the International Conference on Creationism, I said that these reversals had to have happened about every week or two. And I also said, at the end of the paper, what would be good evidence for this model—namely, to find a thin layer of lava which had recorded a good chunk of a reversal. When lava cools down it freezes into itself information about the direction and strength of the earth’s magnetic field at the time. If a lava layer is fairly thin, it will cool down within a matter of weeks. And so, if you found in such a thin layer a large amount of reversal, that would be strong evidence for the theory.​

And was that prediction then fulfilled?

Yes, it was. In April 1989, a paper appeared in Earth and Planetary Science Letters by Robert S. Coe and Michel Prevot, and basically, while I don’t think they had read my paper, they did exactly what I had suggested. They found a thin lava layer which had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it and they calculated that the layer had to cool down within a matter of 15 days or less.

Actually they were very conservative, and it was probably more like only three to seven days. Their paper is filled with statements like, ‘astonishingly fast change in the earth’s magnetic field’, and ‘truly strains the imagination’, and other such comments that indicated that this was a very surprising result to them.​

Evolutionists have always taught that these reversals take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, haven’t they?

Yes. In fact they had even thought that it was physically impossible for reversals to take place faster than a few thousand years.​

Well, they are not reckoning with a catastrophe like the Genesis Flood, are they?

No. They are not reckoning with that kind of catastrophe and what it might do in the Earth’s core.​

Could the evolutionists argue that this is a one-off fluke?

They can’t, because Robert Coe has done it again. Just recently, he has found some more data of the same sort, but it indicates a change even faster than the first one that he found and it is in a different stratum. So it would be extremely unlikely for him to find the second one if it was just a fluke. [Ed. note: see The earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the earth
is young.]​

..................

Australian audiences were fascinated to hear you say that about 90 per cent of all the processes that one could use to measure the age of things actually favour a young world. [Ed. note: see Evidence for a Young World.]

Yes. That’s true. I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 per cent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years. So it seems like it would be good science to go with the flow of the 90 per cent of the data, and use as a working hypothesis that the Earth really is young and then to try to find explanations for the other 10 per cent of the data.

That whole process seems to be a much more scientific approach than the one that is taken by evolutionists. Basically, they concentrate on the 10 per cent of the data, and that’s the data you’ve always heard about. Such as the light travelling from distant galaxies and the radiometric dating techniques, and a few other things like that.​

Finally, how many professionally active scientists would also hold to Genesis creation?

I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are Biblical creationists.​

Source

 

[California Tim]

By the way, I strongly recommend anyone who took the time to read my last post also invest about 15 minutes reading the source article which goes into many more fascinating details. With an honest study, you will find some very brilliant minds, many of which are directly related to sciences involved in this debate are quite adamant that the vast majority of the evidence supports a young earth - as demonstrated in this final quote from the article:

You would state that the facts of science don’t contradict the Bible’s account of a young world?

Oh, not only do they not contradict it, but they strongly support a recent creation and go very strongly against the idea of billions of years that the theistic evolutionists uphold. So, both the facts and the Bible are on the same side and they are on the side of the young-earth creationist. (Dr D. Russell Humphreys)​

 

[rmwilliamsll]

more PRATT

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/trap.shtml

 

[Vance]

First of all, I have read almost everything on ICR and AiG. Second, you really need to learn more about the science behind what these guys are feeding you. All of these concepts and theories have already been falsified, as has been fully laid out in great detail in the other forum. If you want to go through it all again, we can, but really, have you read the evidence on these topics equally from both sides? Are you reading this stuff looking for material which simply supports your pre-conceived ideas, or are you honestly seeking to see which side has more, and more solid, evidence? Be honest with yourself here.

As for Humphreys' last quote, I almost spit my coffee onto my screen. He would have to provide them, that is all there is to it. When polls have been done by reputable companies, the results show that he is so far off-base, one has to doubt his honesty.

Think about the reliability of your possible sources on scientific information:

- mainstream science is made up of both believers and non-believers, people with a wide variety of motivations. Regardless of their "agendas" they must present their evidence and proposals to the community at large, which includes those who have opposing agendas and concepts. Further, the only common-denominator goal of this whole community is to determine what actually happened, and what actually happens, in the natural world. Thus, only those things which are based on sound science and are supportable with legitimate evidence and arguments, will make it through the guantlet of critique and review. This does not mean they always end up with the right answer, of course. But, since the impetus is ultimately on finding out how things really work, eventually mistaken ideas are corrected or improved to better reflect the data. And even then very few concepts are held as absolutes, but only degrees of certainty.

- on the other hand, you have the Creationist ministries, a group with an obvious and admitted agenda. They are the first to acknowledge that they do NOT review the evidence objectively and do NOT just let the evidence drive their conclusions. They admit that they have decided FIRST what the answer is, and then just look for evidence which will support that theory. They also admit that ANY evidence which contradicts their preconceived ideas is, by definition, false. Period.

Which process is more likely to lead to the truth?

Just one example. You cited the moon dust argument earlier. Now, someone told you that was correct, and you trusted them, and believed it strongly enough to quote it here. Did you know that a different Creationist organization, AiG, has already determined that this whole argument is bunk and has included it in their "list of arguments creationists should not use". Now, you have to ask yourself, did your source for the moon-dust theory know that the argument had already been falsified and that even leading Creationist organizations were saying not to use it? If they DID know this, why would they still be using the argument? Are you sure you can trust these people?

BTW, here is AiG's conclusion on this issue:

"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."

 

[California Tim]

more PRATT

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/trap.shtml

LoL. Powerful stuff there. I better come more prepared next time.