Well, that is the subject of this thread! And you failed again to
acknowledge that the issue was scientific in its inception. ICR people and
others are not making up the arguments that were advanced for a thick layer
of dust on the moon. The perception of the public was firmly grounded in
science. You have clearly established that it was the physical evidence
and not the theory that modified our perception of what was expected (i.e
they found there was little dust). Until the physical evidence that there
was very little dust on the moon was in hand, it was still the expected
outcome that there would be a lot of dust on the moon if there was a lot of
time. I present this as a neutral party. I have never used this argument,
and see no need to now. But to say that YEC's were out of their tree
because they advanced this argument as evidence for a young (moon?)
something is just wrong. It was good science in its day. Today it is not
because we know there is very little dust on the moon, so naturalists no
longer predict there would be a lot of dust on the moon, and have found
adequate scientific grounds for their conclusions.
Art
http://biology.swau.edu