Re: [asa] Re: How to approach YECs was Empiricism, Faith and Science

>
> Dave,
> This is the second time you've alluded to the moon dust argument as
> being resolved by the dust layer actually being thicker than it first
> appeared. When I encountered the moon dust argument nearly 25 years ago, the
> claim was debunked based on the fact that they used dust concentrations
> taken from high-altitude balloon measurement and U-2 flight data published
> in the mid-50's and ignored publications a few years later from space probes
> that greatly reduced the dust concentration level. Apparently the balloons
> weren't high enough to avoid terrestrial dust. Frank Awbrey and Steven Shore
> each had articles about this in 1983. Both claimed that the dust layer was
> in fact far thinner than had been anticipated in the 50's but it was
> resolved by better data on the rate of infalling dust on the lunar surface.
>
> Are you saying there's something new that turns this around?
>
> Randy
>
>

Predictions of the thickness of the dust layer ranged widely. Some were
indeed large overestimates; these are often cited in the YEC literature
without noting the existence of other predictions that were closer to the
mark. Science Held Hostage has detailed information. Thus, there is a half
truth in the claim that the layer was thinner than expected.

However, the YEC literature often claims that the actual thickness was no
more than a few centimeters, which is far less than the actual measured
thickness and is an invention based on astronaut footprint photos plus the
assumption that one sinks down to solid rock when stepping on dust.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.