And 90% of it is crud. The rest is subtle crud, mixed with real science.
>In searching for more info on moon dust I came by several interesting
>refs today. I found the usual "10 evidence the earth must be young" in
>several places. I was amazed to find that one claimed the dust was
>expected to be up to 1 mile thick which seems to be a real stretch of
even
>the YEC material. Then I came up on this source which I was surprised
I
>hadn't seen (note the 20-60 mile thick prediction). A organization in
TN
>has a web page called the creation/evolution encyclopedia in which is
>included "59 evidences the earth is very young"
>
>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/
>
>Here the 2 of the 7 evidences under the catagory of "facts about the
moon"
>I thought there were several new twists here some of which I have never
>seen and the others seem to have come from Walter Brown.
Don't trust a word of it, though you've read enough of it to know that
by now I'd guess.
Now what about
>ultraviolet radiation having been long thought to the cause of the
>dust,that is not the original explanation for the dust yet this makes
it
>sound as if that has always been a concern. How confusing can this
get?
>
Confusion is our number one weapon. Confusion and surprise. Erh...
Confusion, surprise and fanatical devotion to etc...
>1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had
long
>been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles
>[32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's
>4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But
scientists
>were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62
cm]
>of dust-just the amount expected if the moon was only a few
>thousand years.-pp. 15, 17.
>
Guess that kind of works if moon dust was 100% transparent to UV
light...
>2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount
of
>soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very
>old.-p. 17.
If only Eugene Shoemaker were still alive to hear that one!
3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium
>236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected
>moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn
into
>lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life
>radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot
be
>older than several thousand years.-p. 17.
>
Funny how I thought they'd all been formed via cosmic rays and similar
radioactive sources. Guess I was wrong.
>Hey, I guess I was wrong about the moon, it is young! :-)
>
>Joel Duff
>
Scary how YEC sites multiply and feed off each other. They all produce
the same garbage, just with different window dressings. I even found a
Jewish YEC using standard Henry Morris style arguments to support the
Talmudic Creation date of 3761 BC. Made me want to cry.
Adam
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com