The dust estimate [Hans Patterson's original studies]might have been,
but the YEC conclusions came after the work in the 60s that actually
measured meteoric infall. Hence they were out of their tree.
>>Art
>
Joel Duff replied
>Art,
>
>I am finding this discussion most intersting. I must admit I am still
>trying to work out the details as to who knew what and when. You may
be
>right about the initial argument but I am not sure yet. Now I would
like
>to see what people were saying in the 1950s. Was the argument that if
the
>moon had been around for 2 billion years it must have thick dust on it
>mainstream scientific thought or was it a minority idea among
scientists
>but a common idea among popularizers of science.
Two different kinds of dust are being discussed I suspect. The YEC
argument is based on 1959/60 work by Hans Patterson, while discussion in
the 50s probably relates to exfoliation of lunar rocks due to day/night
heating changes. Meteoric processes were largely a dark issue back then.
I do think that Jonathan
>has a point that although the thread is about moon dust I find that ICR
>people have polarized the issue by emphasizing the dust as necessarily
>being the result of uniformitarian assumptions when there were other
>concerns and possible causes of moon dust that would not fit within a
>uniformitarian construct. Let's look back in time and see exactly who
and
>how the original argument that dust on the moon might be a significant
>concern. Again, this has been a most interesting thread. I thought
the
>moon dust argument was old stuff but there are some interesting nuances
to
>all of this.
>
>Regards,
>
>joel duff
>
Interesting in a perverse way, like all post-mortems conducted on any
stinking corpse. But I like such perverse discussions anyway. This is
also "history of science" which is interesting in its own way.
Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com