Do any creationists still believe the 'moon dust' argument???

Question

The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it. Creationists claim that scientists were expecting thick dust to have built up over billions of years.

They claimed that the relatively thin layer of dust is evidence of a young solar system.

Do any of you still believe this claim?

So , er, Martin, do you believe the 'moon dust' argument for creationism?

Answer 1

I have heard this argument posed by creationists in complete honesty. Apparently, memes like this one just don't die.

For the record, several major creationist and apologetic organizations have tacked this one onto the list of "arguments Christians shouldn't use".

Answer 2

Most "knowledge" is useless, such as this question. If the universe is a hundred billion years old or a billion years old or a couple of thousand years old, what difference will that make to many of us?

Moon dust is, of course, the leftover from when the Moon was made out of green cheese. This is a well known fact.

Answer 3

I haven't heard the 'moon dust' story before, but that really doesn't mean it isn't around.
Creationists are living proof of just how stupid indoctrinated humans can really be. They are great at finding one tiny bit of evidence, ignoring all other evidence, and calling their evidence 'proof' of thier beliefs.
They did it with dinosaur footprints that look like human footprints, and calling it proof of Noah's flood, completely (and conveniently) ignoring the vast amounts of evidence against it.
They also did it with 'finding' noahs ark, which turned out to be a rock formation near Mt Ararat.
All of these things, and I'm sure 'moon-dust' as well, have been disproven many different ways by world renowned scientists. When you tell them this, they say that it's all a conspiricy by the scientists (who were sent by satan), just like evolution.
I'd be surprised if any creationists even reply to this, surely a free-thinking site like this would have to be 'satan's doing'.

Answer 4

I prefer to note that God's Word stands forever while mankind's science is in a constant state of flux as new discoveries are made and old theories are discarded and things that were once considered to be scientifically certain are thrown on the trash heap as new inventions and discoveries show them to be wrong. Consider if you will some of the early arguments for macro-evolution.

*Charles Darwin, always ready to come up with a theory about everything, explains how the "monstrous whale" originated:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 and 1984 editions), p. 184.

"We know that this animal, the tallest of mammals, dwells in the interior of Africa, in places where the soil, almost always arid and without herbage [not true], obliges it to browse on trees and to strain itself continuously to reach them. This habit sustained for long, has had the result in all members of its race that the forelegs have grown longer than the hind legs and that its neck has become so stretched, that the giraffe, without standing on its hind legs, lifts its head to a height of six meters."—*Jean-Baptist de Monet (1744-1829), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 87.

"So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved . . By this process long-continued . . combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1859), p. 202.

But if you are interested in some of the latest arguments (who knows how long they will stand up) for a young earth, here's a link for you http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

Answer 5

There was a creationist who posted this argument a few days ago.

Answer 6

Yes, they still bring it up. It used to drive my father nuts when he was with NASA and he got so tired of explaining he finally refused to talk about it or the "faked moon landing".

Oh, and he was a Christian.

Answer 7

Man set foot on moon... God exists... moon dust arguement.... The shite we have to live with these days...

Answer 8

"I prefer to note that God's Word stands forever while mankind's science is in a constant state of flux as new discoveries are made and old theories are discarded and things that were once considered to be scientifically certain are thrown on the trash heap as new inventions and discoveries show them to be wrong."

So tell me - you stone your children if they disobey you or otherwise disappoint you, right? This is God's unchanging Word. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

You also eschew polyester because wearing it is against God's undying Word, right? (Leviticus 19:19)

You don't condone the existence of mules or ligers, I hope. God's Word is unchanging. (Leviticus 19:19)

You recognized that it's okay to own slaves, correct? The Word of God is unchanging forever.(Leviticus 19:20)

You don't eat rare steaks, right? That's not allowed according to God's unchanging Word: (Leviticus 19:26)

You don't get a haircut or shave, I am sure, because god's unchanging Word forbids it: (Leviticus 19:27)

You're totally in support of illegal immigration, correct? Because God's unchanging and eternal Word commands you to treat aliens as your bretheren: (Leviticus 19:33 - 34)

You must be in favor of allowing parents to kill their children if they can prove that their children "cursed" them, correct? Because God's unchanging Word expressly says that you must do so: (Lev. 20:9)

You believe it's correct to kill two people who have an affair, correct? The unchanging Word of God says so: (Lev. 20:10)

You also must believe that God won't allow the following to become priests: those who are blind, deaf, lame, disfigured, hunchbacked, have dwarfism, who have any kind of sores, or are sterile or otherwise have damaged testicles. These people are unfit to serve God, according to God's unchanging Word: (Leviticus 21:16 - 23)

You must also believe that if anybody who prophesizes anything that's against God, or if anybody tries to turn you away from God, you must put them to death. That is the only punishment that is acceptable in the eyes of God, He whose Word is unchanging forever: (Deuteronomy 13:5)

You also believe that if anybody, including your own family members, suggests that you follow a different religion, you have an obligation to kill them. This is the unchanging Word of God (Deut. 13:6-10)

You must also believe that if you come across another community in which the people are of a different religion, it is your duty to kill them all - every single one, even the animals. This is God's unchanging Word (Deut. 13:12-16)

You surely believe that if your child hits you, you must kill him. This is the unchanging Word of God. (Exodus 21:15)

You must believe that it's okay to murder atheists for the crime of nonbelief, as God's unchanging Word tells us in 2 Chronicles 15:12-13.

If you don't agree with the ethics of any of the above passages from the Bible, I think you need to ask yourself whether God's Word is truly unchanging in a practical sense, or whether it, too, is subject to being altered in practice as we gain more knowledge, technology, and understanding of the world - just as science is.

Answer 9

Some do.

Answer 10

That is indeed one of their more hilarious "arguments".